This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
What was it Victor Meldrew used to say again?
George has just posted on the Guardian's CiF.
In the discussion that follows his piece, he apologises and says he should have been a better journalist and he calls for the resignation of Phil Jones.
Just thought you might be interested?
Well I never did? Credit where credit is due,
Yes, good on him. However, he does say that the fact that the credibility of 3 or 4 scientists has been damaged does not invalidate the case for man made global warming.
But if their "evidence" was used to underpin and proliferate the idea of AGW that is used for policy making then the influence of these few people is disproportionate. As we know, something is not true just because the majority believe it (at least no in science - politics seems to be in another realm altogether).
He still confuses or equates skeptics about AGW with deniers of climate change !!??
I thought being skeptical about a hypothesis / theory was the natural scientific approach until enough evidence is produced to show that the hypothesis / theory is the "correct" explanation for the observed conditions (always subject to change as new evidence arises).
The "pseudo" email he produces is emotive rubbish and should never have been allowed in a scientific Newspaper article - it belongs in fantasy lands like Narnia or Middle Earth.
Nothing is what it seems and the leopard cannot change its spots.
I have just read this piece and after some expected attempted mitigations, or damage limitation comments such as:
They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence. To bury manmade climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be revealed.
But it isn't the end of the quote, he then delivers a totally unexpected statement:
Luckily for the sceptics, and to my intense disappointment, I have now been passed the ****ing email which confirms that the entire science of global warming is indeed a scam. Had I known that it was this easy to rig the evidence, I wouldn’t have wasted years of my life promoting a bogus discipline. In the interests of open discourse, I feel obliged to reproduce it here.
He then publishes the email.
I think he deserves, after this performance, that you should read it on his website in full context:
And we realise he is not shifting an inch.
Of course, this is the old Moonbat we all know so well.
He isn't in fact the least bit converted and will persist that it is just four or five scientists out of context and a few lines of code.... (if it were just a few lines of code he might have point, a minor point, but a point.
As it happens Harry_Read_me.txt is a file he hasn't read.
Nor has he read the programmer's comments in one of the code segments, both of which have already been picked up on and published and, of course, we wonder what else has yet to be released onto the internet in the lead up to Copenhagen.
Now if this were someone who had hacked in and grabbed a bunch of files and published some, we might expect that those we see are probably representative of the rest. On the other hand, if this is an inside job by a whistle-blower, as some seem to think, we might expect a far greater familiarity with the material and thus that this is probably a selection of the milder material and we will see a couple more releases, each more damming than the last.
A good strategy. Let loose some stuff that will create some shock, bring forth lots of "out of context", the scientists use words and phrases that don't have the apparent meaning but a meaning based on their personal relationships, they really didn't actually destroy data 'cos here it is etc etc..
Then just when they think they might weather the storm (apt, that) and a few others think they have escaped entirely, out will come some more that are even more damming and less defensible.
Oh, I hope so. I really hope so.
Maybe the we will see a really contrite Monbat, who really does have to apologise - except he won't. AT worst, he will say he was only following orders - sorry, only trusting the scientists.
I agree with you JMW a leopard never changes it's spots! Moonbat will always be Moonbat!
For a bit of light relief have a look at this web page with a link to a video on YouTube
You've got to love those Minnesotan climate change deniers haven't you?
Also here's some links on the coverage of the leaked emails on Fox News
and on Russia Today
(show interview with Peter Lilley one of only 3 UK MPs not to vote for Ed Milliband's UK Climate Change Bill to be enacted)