Cory Doctorow and the other so-called “freedom-loving” douchebags at BoingBoing put the recent hack of the East Anglian Climate Research Unit into context for us.
A huge amount of email from the East Anglia Climate Research Unit was hacked and released onto the web, causing much rejoicing from the climate change denialists. They read through the corpus of email and found that the scientists working on climate change often have substantive disagreements with one another, which they debate vigorously in email, and cited this as evidence of a conspiracy to cover up dissent and present a scientific consensus on climate change.
Futurismic’s Tom Marcinko does a great job of putting this in context, rounding up several links to other good commentators around the web. In a nutshell: science is about the advancement of competing theories and the evaluation of these theories in light of evidence. The East Anglia Climate Research Unit’s scientists disagreed in some particulars, and used peer-review to resolve them (and continue to do so). No one is paying them to cover up evidence that climate change isn’t real or isn’t caused by humans — but they are conducting science the way that scientists do.
So our own Rich environmental scientist, his brother — the MIT grad says the gun here is smoking. But no wait! The collection of performance artists, young adult fiction writers and steampunk aficionados at BoingBoing assure us that this is what “scientists do”. These coverups were an example of “peer review” and how scientists conduct science. I agree — too often nowadays this is the way scientists do science — and that’s not a good thing.
Here’s the link to Futurismic Doctorow mentions to explain to use how the fraud and coercion we see in these e-mails and memos is in fact objective science. You see — how can scientists do any work with all these people making fun of them? Never mind the fact that there are polar bears thriving, ice growing and forests expanding, not to mention temperatures dropping and rising — like temperatures often do.
Let the spin continue!
Print
Digg
StumbleUpon
del.icio.us
Facebook
Yahoo! Buzz
Twitter
Google Bookmarks
Google Buzz
LinkedIn
MSN Reporter
MySpace
Orkut
Ping.fm
Reddit
RSS
Slashdot
Technorati
Tumblr
Webnews.de
Well it’s good to know the genius scientists are figuring out what is worth knowing behind closed doors so we don’t have to confuse our normal sized brains with to many details. It’s best they just tell us the important stuff. Better yet, don’t bother, I’ll get all my climate change marching orders from NBC.
In one of the e-mails doesn’t one of the altruistic, saintly scientists threaten to do away with peer review of one or more of the papers when the data are not pointing to what he wants the data to point to?
You’re just unfairly taking that out of context Rufus.
Just to be fair – and I want to point out that I don’t for a moment believe Global Warming is really happening – “Expanding Forest” would generally be taken as an indicator of an upswing in global temperature. Why? Because warmer air can hold more moisture, which means more rain, whcih means forest grow. In every “Hot Age” we’ve seen a vast increase in the size of forests and jungles. Conversely, in every Ice Age, rainfall sharply drops off, and forests dwindle for the exact same reason: Cold air can’t hold as much moisture. This is a common misconception of “Environmentalists,” most (but not all) of whom are idiots. If they really wanted a greener world, they’d be working *for* Global Warming, which inevitably expands the biosphere.
Come to think of it, if Polar Bears are doing better, that strongly implies the world is getting colder…
The world may be getting warmer or cooler — but I don’t think we cause it. The world tends to do very well when temps rise — jumps in technological advancements, etc.
At the risk of simplistic reasoning if global fluctuations in temperature were not normal why would we have had an ice age to begin with?
Turn in your ID card and report to the reeducation camp at your local drive-in — at once Veruckt.
As pointed out in postings at The Corner: if these were emails purloined from some big business or unfashionable gov’t agency (think five sides), Congress would already be trying to hold hearings and the Left would be screaming for indictments and people would already be out of a job.
Just another example of how they exempt themselves from behavior they expect from everyone else. Yet they will seize on the smallest inconsistency to yell “hypocrite!”
Looky what CBS has on their site…http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/24/taking_liberties/entry5761180.shtml
Congressional investigation? Would that be awesome or what? I hope Inhofe kicks these jokers butts till their blue. It’s such a sweet prospect, I really can’t believe it would happen. (Pessimistic optimist that I am).
Under the current Congress, I don’t think the “scientists” have much to worry about. Just wait ’til the end of 2010, baby!
This whole scenario reminds me of all the Evolution hype that took place some years ago when it was discovered that someone in the field had put together a bunch of very old bones and “created” Lucy, a supposed missing link that set the evolution nuts on a decades long rant about how they were right. Later after the fraud was made public, evolution took a nosedive? Not so, my friends. As we can see the hype actually intensified and they were strengthened by their own lies. It was at that time I cancelled my subscription to Nat. Geo. along with a scathing letter calling them such things as “Hucksters” along with some other things I won’t reprint here for the benefit of the ladies.
The keyword to all this sort of thing lies within the word AGENDA. All for the agenda. They don’t give a shit if they are wrong and proven so. They will continue to crank out the BS and the mindless hords will continue to believe the lies therin.
Did Fritz just say, “h*ckst*rs?!” And he claims to be worried about offending ladies? For shame!
Actually it was the word $h*t that was the kicker. Being from Texas, I am often accused of being a $h*t-kicker!
There is only one sure cure for academic pretense, and that remedy is Iowahawk.
Since I have way too many degrees to provide a working link, I’ll just tease with an excerpt, and you all can chase down iowahawk.com on your own:
“In this exclusive footage, Burge warily approaches the hive’s security drone, disguising himself as smelly graduate student. Burge has theorized that as a member of the lowest stratum in the hive’s social system, the drone likely enjoys partying. He reaches into his backpack and offers the drone a pint of Guinness and a small bag of weed in exchange for the hive’s internal security tapes and email files. Success.
The never-before seen security tapes obtained by Burge provide a rare glimpse into the inner working of the climate research hive and its amazing guano production. In this sequence, we see one group of researchers entering the hive each carrying a datum they have retrieved from a distant climate measuring station. This is the cause of much excitement among their colleagues, who buzz around in a grant-writing frenzy.
(Infrared heat map film of highly agitated researchers)
But there’s a problem: as the worker researchers attempt to store each raw datum into the neat honeycomb hockey stick structure provided by the hive’s Alpha Grantwriter, they discover that few will fit. The infrared shows them growing cool with fear. This signals the climate researcher’s instinctive behavior to begin viciously beating, rolling and normalizing the data into submission. According to Dr. Nigel V.H. Oldham, professor emeritus at Oxford University’s Centre for Metascience, this violent data dance is what makes climate researchers unique among breeds of scientists.”
I apologize for my big bro, who – in addition to having a PhD from MIT – is retarded.
Here’s the link:
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/11/iowahawk-geographic-the-secret-life-of-climate-researchers.html
Funny, Stosh! I just got back from reading the piece myself. Iowahawk is a true talent! A national treasure.
Bite me
(Previous comment directed to ungrateful sibling – note timestamp)
Doctorow saith: “the scientists working on climate change often have substantive disagreements with one another, which they debate vigorously in email, and cited this as evidence of a conspiracy to cover up dissent and present a scientific consensus on climate change”
Actually, jackass, scientists do engage in vigorous debate. This is not a surprise to actual scientists. Scientists also have substantive disagreements. This is also not a surprise to actual scientists. What has been mind-boggling, to actual scientists, is that one group of scientists has refused to enter into “vigorous debate” on the public stage. One group of scientists has refused to admit that there are “substantive disagreements” on the issues.
The e-mails and other documentary evidence contained in the CRU files show that we skeptics were correct: a vigorous debate does exist and substantive disagreements do exist. The alarmists, backpeddling furiously, have now concluded that there is nothing wrong with debate and disagreements. Why then, pray tell, have we been told there is “consensus” and “the science is settled” for so long?
What is disturbing about the CRU scandal, to anyone with an intellect greater than a 10 year old’s, is the concerted effort to cut off debate and to ignore any disagreements. These people are bullies and hucksters, interested in preserving their funding and winning acclaim for their models, at the expense of the kind of PUBLIC debate and disagreements that are so necessary to the scientific method.
Rufus here; what’s disturbing about the CRU scandal to those of us with an intellect lower than a 10 year old’s is that it does not have more to do with giant lasers, mounted on satellites shaped like electric guitars, or maybe a fire-breathing liger. That would be cool!
Now Rich is calling people “h*ckst*rs.” Do you see what you’ve started, Fritz?!
Great minds-same sewer; you know the drill, Rufus
Re: “vigorous debate”
If the CRU hucksters actually gave a shiite about “vigorous debate”, they wouldn’t have spent eight years contorting themselves into Klein bottles trying to hide the data on which they (presumably) based their papers.
O.K., “Klein bottles…” is that some fancy-pants, ivory tower, MIT scientist term, or has comedian Robert Klein come out with his own soft drink? ‘Cause if it’s the latter, I’m hoping there’s a kiwi-mango flavor.
A Klein bottle is a confusing mathematical concept — essentially a shape with no clearly definable “outside” or “inside”. It is shaped kind of like a bottle, except that the top and the bottom are in the same place — so if you want to get anything in through the top, you have to flip it upside down and put it in through the hole in the bottom, which is also the hole in the top… Oh God, I’ve gone crosseyed.
Some of these “freedom-loving douchebags” aren’t really all that smart, are they?
I love that phrase, btw.
That is very profound, Jeff! Two thumbs up on it!
RTF,
Klein bottle: kind of like a Mobius strip in three dimensions
Mobius strip: I think Elizabeth Berkley might have done one in “Showgirls”
I heard that was a comedy.
I learned how to make a mobius strip from Ray Rayner!
Check out the link form “Jake Was Here” (which describes, among other things, how to construct a Klein bottle), and you’ll see why Ray saw a brighter future as Oliver O. Oliver than as an instructor in topology.
Additional Ray Rayner factoid: he was involved in the planning for the actual prison break that eventually led to the movie “The Great Escape” – especially apropos since the diary of one the actual participants in that event has just been published.
From Stalag whatever to Bozo’s Circus – is this a great country, or what?