I felt it was important at this stage of Climategate that I give some opinions and express where I’m at personally in this whole mess. I started blogging on climate with a true interest in the science and numbers. There is no question that I’ve been critical of the politically leftist nature of the environmental movement in general and I had been skeptical of the IPCC for its intentionally bias-creating structure. It is clear that the IPCC can’t exist without extreme, dangerous climate change which requires expensive solutions. Without that the group fails to continuously attract funding for the other groups. Still, that is a completely separate issue from data, statistics and methods. Since my introduction to climate science, I have been exposed to numerous flatly false statistical techniques which are often simply accepted by the science as long as the message is right. Shrinking fish, goofy coral papers, false model comparison papers, ridiculous paleo work on and on…. I do not accept the claim that climate scientists believe that selecting preferred data doesn’t automatically bias the results. Most high school students would be able to tell you that. Why the community won’t reject them is now crystal clear.
These emails are actually far worse than the previous batch because we can see the bias in operation through the completeness of numerous conversations, funding discussions, blocked peer review, deletion of emails, promotion of the right kind of people and denial that anything is wrong. It shows the ugly underbelly of a single-minded group of people who have the firm belief that they are right and that it does not matter if data needs to be massaged to prove it. Soon and Baliunas could not set-back a healthy scientific field by decades with a single paper. In a healthy science, a paper strong enough to change opinions would be pushing it forward. From the emails and papers, the paleoclimatologists featured are convincingly not scientists and I beleive the same is true for many modelers who don’t seem to realize the models are running hot. Throughout these emails the featured advocates continually tweak, massage, adjust, reject and modify anything which takes away from the extremist message of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Real Climate website has made the claim that nothing important is in these emails but it is clear from some of the authors featured position in the emails (and the false claim) that RC authors are not in any way qualified to judge. They are so close to their friends good intentions that they have even taken the position that there is nothing at all wrong with selecting the preferred data or adjusting the curves to show what you want.
This is not science.