Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 05:11:25 -0800 (PST) From: Santosh Helekar <[email protected]>
All original data on climate change are still available for anybody to analyze independently. To obtain the facts on all the exaggerations and errors in the post appended below, please read the following Pew Center report: http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/east-anglia-cru-hacked-emails-12-09-09.pdf Mario responds: Scientists are not supposed to go along with the lead steers in the herd. A falsely claimed "consensus" that hundreds of climate scientists disagree with is not an acceptable standard when the political policy implications are incredibly ludicrous and unlikely to have the desired effect while destroying the major economies in the world, thus achieving extreme socialism's failed objectives through the back door of extreme environmentalism. Santosh's spirited and one-sided defense of the objectivity of the scientific process and of the scientific "consensus" on blaming humans for climate change is not shared by other INDEPENDANT observers of the dark underbelly of science, even those on the political left wing like the Guardian, which has been a supporter of the proposition that climate change must be blamed on humans: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-review Excerpt: Scientists sometimes like to portray what they do as divorced from the everyday jealousies, rivalries and tribalism of human relationships. What makes science special is that data and results that can be replicated are what matters and the scientific truth will out in the end. But a close reading of the emails hacked from the University of East Anglia in November exposes the real process of everyday science in lurid detail. Many of the emails reveal strenuous efforts by the mainstream climate scientists to do what outside observers would regard as censoring their critics. And the correspondence raises awkward questions about the effectiveness of peer review – the supposed gold standard of scientific merit – and the operation of the UN's top climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The scientists involved disagree. They say they were engaged not in suppressing dissent but in upholding scientific standards by keeping bad science out of peer-reviewed journals. Either way, when passing judgment on papers that directly attack their own work, they were mired in conflicts of interest that would not be allowed in most professions. [end of excerpt]
