M A I N P A G E


Friday, November 27, 2009

One is left to wonder why they felt the need to rig the game in the first place, if their science is as robust as they claim 

posted by Erik @ 16:30

The impression left by the Climategate emails is that the global warming game has been rigged from the start
is the subtitle of a piece in the Wall Street Journal as the title uses the word "forge" in both meanings of the word. (See how Obama's White House is involved…)
…the furor over these documents [those in last week's leaked-email and document scandal] is not about tone, colloquialisms or even whether climatologists are nice people in private. The real issue is what the messages say about the way the much-ballyhooed scientific consensus on global warming was arrived at in the first place, and how even now a single view is being enforced. In short, the impression left by the correspondence among Messrs. Mann and Jones and others is that the climate-tracking game has been rigged from the start.

According to this privileged group, only those whose work has been published in select scientific journals, after having gone through the "peer-review" process, can be relied on to critique the science. And sure enough, any challenges that critics have lobbed at climatologists from outside this clique are routinely dismissed and disparaged.

…The scare quotes around "peer-reviewed literature," by the way, are Mr. Mann's. He went on in the email to suggest that the journal itself be blackballed … In other words, keep dissent out of the respected journals. When that fails, re-define what constitutes a respected journal to exclude any that publish inconvenient views. It's easy to manufacture a scientific consensus when you get to decide what counts as science.

The response to this among the defenders of Mr. Mann and his circle has been that even if they did disparage doubters and exclude contrary points of view, theirs is still the best climate science we've got. The proof for this is circular. It's the best, we're told, because it's the most-published and most-cited—in that same peer-reviewed literature.

Even so, by rigging the rules, they've made it impossible to know how good it really is. And then, one is left to wonder why they felt the need to rig the game in the first place, if their science is as robust as they claim. If there's an innocent explanation for that, we'd love to hear it.


|

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been pre-authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of political, economic, scientific, social, art, media, and cultural issues. The 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material that may exist on this site is provided for under U.S. Copyright Law. In accordance with U.S. Code Title 17, Section 107, material on this site is distributed without profit to persons interested in such information for research and educational purposes. If you want to use any copyrighted material that may exist on this site for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. // AVIS : En vertu de l'article L. 122-5 du Code de Propriété Intellectuelle, ce site Internet peut contenir des citations dont l'usage n'aura pas reçu l'autorisation du détenteur ou de la détentrice du droit d'auteur. La présentation de ces citations se fait dans le but de faciliter la découverte de divers sujets politiques, économiques, scientifiques, sociaux, artistiques, médiatiques ou encore culturels. L'article L. 122-5 du Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle dispose et autorise « les analyses et courtes citations justifiées par le caractère critique, polémique, pédagogique, scientifique ou d'information de l'oeuvre à laquelle elles sont incorporées ». A contrario, les emprunts qui excéderont les dispositions du « droit de citation », devront obtenir l'autorisation du détenteur ou de la détentrice du droit d'auteur.