Posted by Jeff Id on February 24, 2010
Blogging has been very difficult since Climategate. So much wind is taken out of the discussion when everything ends the same way. A lot of bloggers have written their opinions on what the event meant to them, in my opinion it has a lot of different meanings. It has permanently changed the landscape of climate science. No longer will we have to hear about the perfect integrity of the scientists in blogland. We no longer need to question why good papers have been blocked from publication. After the initial Copenhagen proposal, Chavez’s Copenhagen speech, and raucous applause of the audience, we don’t need to wonder about the political intent of the “scientists” and world governments any longer.
Today at 10am EST, tAV and several other blogs will carry a post by Dr. Judith Curry on the issue of regaining trust in climate science. It’s going to be interesting to see how it’s carried by other blogs/papers. Trust is a word that I’ve seen many climate scientists use to describe what they aspire to in the debate, yet trust is completely beside the point. Trust is faith and has no place in science. Trust is not something to be given to a paper, community or blogger. Trust is what you reserve for close friends and family. In science, there is only openness, reproducibility and understanding.
Recently, I had a phone conversation with another blogger regarding Mann08. When I made the point that the 08 paper was so obviously bad, that the selection of preferred data was proof of intent, the reaction was one of surprise rather than agreement. In another instance Gavin Schmidt misapplied a wavelet analysis to a criticism of a Nichola Scafetta paper in a surprising way. In an early revision of her post for today, Dr. Curry described the errors in Mann’s work as ‘relatively minor errors’ – this was later removed. I am beginning to wonder if my take on this is wrong. I wonder now if they are simply not mathematically inclined enough to understand just how bad these paleoclimate works are. Mann is good though, he’s found too many way’s to achieve the same data sorting result. He must know!!- I tell myself, how could he not? Gavin is a mathematician by trade, yet he really did blow the Scafetta wavelet analysis and I really could have fixed it immediately for him. He simply said, I’m not perfect and went on with his massive ego after a few days of contriteness. But the error was not small, it was conceptual at it’s core and really took the shine off his abilities in my eyes.
Do they really not understand? Are they honestly missing the paleoclimate boat this badly or is it fraud?
Then we see the words ‘trick to hide the decline’ show up in the emails. The scientists scramble to explain it away as nothing, focusing on the word ‘trick’ and ignoring the rest. It’s spelled out right there where anyone who can read a Dr. Suess book can figure it out. Panels of investigators are formed with blatantly false claims of independence. Mann is almost completely exonerated despite guilt on so many issues. The obvious goal of these false panels MUST be to sweep the situation aside as expediently as possible otherwise some effort to appear independent would have been made.
Perhaps one or two heads will be chopped off, but the goal of these groups is to leave intact the hundred plus billion dollar global warming industry. And more importantly though, is the continuation of the socialist world governing political movement.
That leads back to the very unusual request for “trust of science”. Trust of people with a proven bias in handling data, financial incentives, anti-prosperity politics, who have only three months ago been caught with their hands in the cookie jar. It’s absolutely not a matter of trust, it’s a matter of understanding what the climate science movement has become, a deep understanding of what it is at it’s core, a knowledge of the types of anti-prosperity hardships it proposes in exchange for its crystal ball predictions of a worse fate.
It is not trust that climatology requires, climatology requires verification. Climatology requires political balance in the solution rather than wild and falsifiable predictions of disaster to put in place emergency leftist global governments. Climatology exposed its hand this year in the various Copenhagen proposals and while it did, its pants fell down.
So many climate science articles are completely insensitive to the political aspect of what was just recommended by environmental activist climate PhD’s in Copenhagen. Leftists themselves, they are completely deaf to the wildly extremist acts which are being proposed. Copenhagen was nothing less than an anti-prosperity, unelected, socialist new world order. Almost in lockstep, scientists and world governments have continued their inexorable march to power seeking to direct and tax every aspect of our lives. The robust chants of consensus and never ending refrains of doesn’t change the conclusion shouted before them. They have no intention of letting little things like fraud and corruption get in their way.
If the consensus scientists want my trust, they need to start by not lying about what they are.