Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Community
»
The Flameboard
»
ClimateGate
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Guardian 2000: [QB] 1. No one is suggesting that the behavior seen in ClimateGate is normal for the scientific community, except of course for AGW researcher apologist site RealClimate and a few other similar pro-AGW locales. While that's funny, I certainly don't presume that any climate researcher or real scientist behaves in such unethical ways as a matter of course, and neither should you. 2. Their goal [i]was[/i] to mislead, and their publications in journals were not exactly for a non-scientific audience. If the concern was with their political allies and they wanted to make sure the UN's IPCC people understood something, they could've simply called them, since they were in such close communication as seen in the ClimateGate e-mails. 3. Given that this was a major source of AGW data, and that the papers of those involved are considered some of the better bits of data in the science (both for modern and paleo needs), yes there is a lot of science that has been damaged. I don't know where your idea of someone saying "all climate research is a misleading lie" is coming from, but it should be needless to say that a great deal of research should now be reviewed, most especially what emerged from CRU but also that which used AGW-alarmist researcher publications as reference sources. To put it in a localized perspective, Starships and Technology posts at Flare might feature links to points raised in other S&T threads, and arguments about some bit of minutiae might turn on the claims from those older threads. We have the advantage of being able to just pop in a DVD to confirm or deny someone's claim if for some reason they didn't provide the evidence via screenshot, but climate research doesn't have a readily accessible canon. They have tree ring proxies and error-ridden surface station logs that they won't share and other crap. The net result is that a new thread might reference other threads, with no capacity to re-analyze the older thread sources or confirm or deny the findings. And yet an argument in that new thread might turn on what was said before . . . could even be based on it. And then another thread might come up that references the one that referenced the other one, and so on and so forth. It may be that the original error is filtered out by distance, or it may be that there are whole threads based on the original hoax . . . can't be sure without looking. If what was said before was shown to be full of it, a review is not evidence of some evil denialist conspiracy . . . it is demanded by scientific ethics. The CRU guys had none. The rest of climate science must now pick up their slack, especially when they know good and well that trillions of dollars and human lives are riding on it. And y'know, frankly, it seems to me that anyone who denies that simple premise is in danger of being a kool-aid drinker. I'm not poisoning the well here . . . feel free to disagree for a good reason . . . but I'll be damned if we should simply ignore ClimateGate because of its inconvenient truths. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3