Physicists’ memo to Parliament blasts AGW “science”

posted at 10:40 am on February 27, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

The British Parliament has begun an investigation into the meaning of the East Anglia CRU e-mails, and part of that process is a form of peer review, in a sense.  Their Science and Technology committee has welcomed commentary from the scientific community, and among those members is the non-profit charity, the Institute of PhysicsIn their submission, the IoP says that the UEA CRU e-mails don’t just indict East Anglia, but the entire AGW industry — and that “science” wasn’t what they were doing at all (via Watts Up With That and Mike Ross, emphases mine):

What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?

1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.

2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself – most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change.

And as far as the science being settled, or even “science” as understood by the public as conclusory data, the IoP has issues with that characterization as well:

4. The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.

5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.

In other words, the claims made by AGW advocates didn’t match the data available elsewhere.  When challenged on this, the AGW advocates refused to release the data to other scientists, and finally refused to release it under a Freedom of Information demand.  When it looked as though the government would get their hands on the data anyway, the CRU conspired to destroy the data, along with other AGW advocates around the world.

The IoP doesn’t trust East Anglia to restore confidence in the AGW movement’s claim to science, either, because the fraud went well beyond the boundaries of the University of East Anglia:

Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate?

10. The scope of the UEA review is, not inappropriately, restricted to the allegations of scientific malpractice and evasion of the Freedom of Information Act at the CRU. However, most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other leading institutions involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change. In so far as those scientists were complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices, there is need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in this field.

11. The first of the review’s terms of reference is limited to: “…manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice…” The term ‘acceptable’ is not defined and might better be replaced with ‘objective’.

12. The second of the review’s terms of reference should extend beyond reviewing the CRU’s policies and practices to whether these have been breached by individuals, particularly in respect of other kinds of departure from objective scientific practice, for example, manipulation of the publication and peer review system or allowing pre-formed conclusions to override scientific objectivity.

This is a devastating critique from an objective scientific community.  It exposes as risible the notion that, as EPA Director Lisa Jackson attempted to insist, the UEA CRU e-mails only revealed a lack of interpersonal skills among AGW advocates.  As the IoP makes clear, the UEA CRU and its many partners in the AGW movement committed intellectual and scientific fraud — and their conclusions should be viewed as worthless.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

physicists – flat earthers. just like the holocaust deniers.

notagool on February 27, 2010 at 10:44 AM

And The IOP is no itty-bitty organization no one has ever heard of either, they publish a lot of scientific journals that are widely read.

Oh, I just wish I had more confidence that the people who really need to see information like this will, and change their minds and actions as a result.

David Shane on February 27, 2010 at 10:45 AM

What do these people know, it’s not like they are scientist scientists. They don’t even work for the U.N.

Oldnuke on February 27, 2010 at 10:45 AM

the organization will be attacked as a front for oil companies. As a matter of fact I expect the warming industry to find some marginal connection and use that to discount their criticism.

rob verdi on February 27, 2010 at 10:48 AM

I live for the day Al Gore is being bitchslapped around in a congressional hearing and threatened with criminal charges.

gsherin on February 27, 2010 at 10:48 AM

Thanks, Ed! This one’s a keeper.

petefrt on February 27, 2010 at 10:49 AM

So can we say “the evidence is settled”? AGW was a huge hoax? What law firm is conducting the class action suit against Al Gore?

truetexan on February 27, 2010 at 10:51 AM

See?

Science works.

Skywise on February 27, 2010 at 10:51 AM

Shut up . IT IS SETTLED. – Al Gore

/

CWforFreedom on February 27, 2010 at 10:52 AM

Oakland and harry- you little AGW trolls where are ya?

CWforFreedom on February 27, 2010 at 10:53 AM

LGF has just banned the Institute of Physics and the British Parliament.

The only settled thing is that the CRU & IPCC are frauds. IPCC & Al Gore must give back their Nobel.

rbj on February 27, 2010 at 10:54 AM

It is not just the science, there is also all that grant money.

Skandia Recluse on February 27, 2010 at 10:57 AM

Breaking Fake News from BendOver BackWards News(BBN).

In a late night raid,members of the Peace Prize Police
assaulted the home of Al Gore,and have siezed his Peace
Prize,along with all his photo-ops with dignataries,of
Al Gore holding his Peace Prize!

Computers and all related data have been seized,
and,his High Priest Global Warming Religion Frock,
er,his Global Religion attire were also taken!

Also siezed,was his electrical,and water bills!

Details,as they roll in!!(Snark).

canopfor on February 27, 2010 at 11:00 AM

As the IoP makes clear, the UEA CRU and its many partners in the AGW movement committed intellectual and scientific fraud — and their conclusions should be viewed as worthless.

To dismiss all scientific work related to climate change (as well as the anthropomorphic component) as “worthless” is unjustifiable. There is a massive amount of work related to climate change that has been done over decades of time and attemps to paint all related science and scientists with this broad brush of incompetence (or worse), Ed, lacks reason.

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 11:01 AM

!!!!!!!!!!!*AN AUDIT*!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Would be good!!

canopfor on February 27, 2010 at 11:01 AM

Shut up . IT IS SETTLED. – Al Gore
/

CWforFreedom on February 27, 2010 at 10:52

He explained.

FIFY

FOWG1 on February 27, 2010 at 11:01 AM

Show me the money,oops,er,the Ice Core Samples!!

canopfor on February 27, 2010 at 11:02 AM

The foundation of the huge AGW edifice is being chipped away by the truth. Stand back and enjoy the show as it topples into a big heap of dust.

RadClown on February 27, 2010 at 11:02 AM

To dismiss all scientific work related to climate change (as well as the anthropomorphic component) as “worthless” is unjustifiable. There is a massive amount of work related to climate change that has been done over decades of time and attemps to paint all related science and scientists with this broad brush of incompetence (or worse), Ed, lacks reason.

True, but that is the inevitable fallout from what these liars did. Science will take a long time to recover. Those of us in the field will be able to differentiate, but for the average person, the vision of the socially inept, but ethically pure scientist is gone. Thanks, Al. Thanks IPCC. Thanks 52%.

pehrsson on February 27, 2010 at 11:05 AM

attemps to paint all related science and scientists with this broad brush of incompetence (or worse), Ed, lacks reason.

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 11:01 AM

Conclusions, oakland, conclusions.
The related science might be sound on its own, but it they used faulty assumptions, then their conclusions are unrelated to the reality we face.

Count to 10 on February 27, 2010 at 11:06 AM

Uh oh! Algore missing and now this!

katy the mean old lady on February 27, 2010 at 11:06 AM

Yes, there should be an investigation, and there are individuals within the scientific community that should be sanctioned (or even relieved of their positions). To be fair, this process should wend its way with the full blessing of the scientific community and the general public.
Competent scientists have an interest in seeing that incompetence is brought to light, and that bad behavior is punished.

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 11:07 AM

Anyway, good to see that my fellow physicists are just as annal about the truth as I thought they were.

Count to 10 on February 27, 2010 at 11:07 AM

Yes, there should be an investigation, and there are individuals within the scientific community that should be sanctioned (or even relieved of their positions). To be fair, this process should wend its way with the full blessing of the scientific community and the general public.
Competent scientists have an interest in seeing that incompetence is brought to light, and that bad behavior is punished.

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 11:07 AM

Punished? In what way? Isn’t being discredited enough?

Count to 10 on February 27, 2010 at 11:08 AM

Gore? Gore? Anyone seen Al Gore?

GarandFan on February 27, 2010 at 11:08 AM

To dismiss all scientific work related to climate change (as well as the anthropomorphic component) as “worthless” is unjustifiable. There is a massive amount of work related to climate change that has been done over decades of time and attemps to paint all related science and scientists with this broad brush of incompetence (or worse), Ed, lacks reason.

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 11:01 AM

So you got screuwed on that investment in caron credits. Cry me a glacier.

katy the mean old lady on February 27, 2010 at 11:09 AM

The American elite media is all over this story….

d1carter on February 27, 2010 at 11:10 AM

there are individuals within the scientific community that should be sanctioned (or even relieved of their positions).

What do you mean “even” relieved of their positions. This is the absolute minimum and should happen without question. The real question is what criminal charges to bring. Fraud is fraud, whether in the lab or Bernie Madoff’s office.

pehrsson on February 27, 2010 at 11:10 AM

The related science might be sound on its own, but it they used faulty assumptions, then their conclusions are unrelated to the reality we face.

Is this not always true for any scientific work? If there are “faulty assumptions”, competent scientists acting competently should spot them (and already have, in many cases).

AGW theories are works in progress and not “settled science” (despite Al Gore’s assertions). As more evidence becomes available, the theories are refined.

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 11:11 AM

Several commenters have brought up Algore. Do you all realize that algore is being given an honorary doctorate from the unversity of tennessee? (see instapundit). What does this say for graduates of this so-called educational institution? They are right down there with notre dame. Why would any state taxpayers support these actions? You people of tennessee are really stupid or apathetic to accept this. Where is the tar and feathers?

Old Country Boy on February 27, 2010 at 11:14 AM

The web site WUWT is doing real science, going back to recording stations and doing raw analysis of temperature data. Anthony Watts runs the site. He and a veritable army of volunteers intend to look at each station. Much of what they are seeing is bias in the adjustments that NOAA and GISS have made, exaggerating the late 20th century warming trend. All their work including raw data is made available.

AGW alarmism is on its last legs now.

GnuBreed on February 27, 2010 at 11:15 AM

To dismiss all scientific work related to climate change (as well as the anthropomorphic component) as “worthless” is unjustifiable. There is a massive amount of work related to climate change that has been done over decades of time and attemps to paint all related science and scientists with this broad brush of incompetence (or worse), Ed, lacks reason.

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 11:01 AM

No one has denied perpetrating a fraud of this magnitude is indeed “a massive amount of work.” That’s rather the point. How much time and money has been wasted on this boondoggle to blame mankind for the weather?

BKennedy on February 27, 2010 at 11:15 AM

Senator Imhofe was crucified by the leftwing media for his questioning of the scientific data being presented on global warming. He is now pressing for a Congressional hearing centered on Gore and the possibility of illegal/unethial practices he may have been involved in as he was the figurehead of this being the biggest scam in history. Somebody needs to tell Obama as he is still pressing the message that is being discredited on a daily basis. This would be hilarious if it wasn’t so threatening in regards of the effect on so many lives.

volsense on February 27, 2010 at 11:17 AM

You know it’s going down hill for the warmists when the NatGeo channel starts to air coming ice age programs.

Now excuse me while I go out and shovel another foot of global warming off my driveway.

walkingboss on February 27, 2010 at 11:19 AM

The related science might be sound on its own, but it they used faulty assumptions, then their conclusions are unrelated to the reality we face.

Is this not always true for any scientific work? If there are “faulty assumptions”, competent scientists acting competently should spot them (and already have, in many cases).

Honestly misinterpretating the data and making faulty assumptions is one thing. You can’t do science without having that happen sometimes. Deliberately misleading people and destroying evidence in the service of keeping the grant money flowing is quite another.

pehrsson on February 27, 2010 at 11:19 AM

Gore? Gore? Anyone seen Al Gore?

GarandFan on February 27, 2010 at 11:08 AM

Actually, yes. He was at the Apple Shareholders’ Meeting (he’s on the board) and got booed and heckled the other day.

http://hillbuzz.org/2010/02/26/al-gore-heckled-at-apple-shareholders-meeting/

UnderstandingisPower on February 27, 2010 at 11:19 AM

AGW theories are works in progress and not “settled science” (despite Al Gore’s assertions). As more evidence becomes available, the theories are refined.

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 11:11 AM

A good scientific mindset would allow for the possibility that the theory might end up totally debunked.

Disturb the Universe on February 27, 2010 at 11:27 AM

From: Ministry of State Media (MSM)

To: Winston Smith, Senior Analyst: Historical Refinement Section

Subject: Non-discretionary overtime

You will be required to work overtime for the next several months. In addition to your normal duties, you will have responsibility for training 40-50 of our news anchors and commentators in the art and science of historical refinement. This is due to the fact that we will shortly be commencing a major initiative to correct the widespread impression that the MSM have been at war with the deniers of global warming.

As the President will shortly remind us, the White House and the MSM has always been at war with those who perverted the good name of science in an alarmist campaign to line their own pockets via various carbon-trading scams and other conspiracies.

The time has come to correct this terrible misconception that was fostered by the Bush administration, and perpetuated by such enemies of the MSM as Rush Limbaugh and She Who Must Not Be Named. Despite the valiant efforts of President Obama and his leading scientists, Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod, these misconceptions persist, particulary in the tragically ill-informed non-coastal regions of this great country.

You skills will be invaluable in the coming struggle to bring the truth to the American people.

drunyan8315 on February 27, 2010 at 11:27 AM

Is this not always true for any scientific work? If there are “faulty assumptions”, competent scientists acting competently should spot them (and already have, in many cases).

AGW theories are works in progress and not “settled science” (despite Al Gore’s assertions). As more evidence becomes available, the theories are refined.

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 11:11 AM

Has the earth warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age?
Yes.

But why is not clear, and to ascribe it to human activity and that there are going to be apocalyptic consequences is not merely irresponsible, the IPCC & CRU have intentionally manipulated data and committed fraud which should be punished criminally.

Earth’s climate is a complex system, there are many variables that have more impact than human activity.

rbj on February 27, 2010 at 11:28 AM

I have a long running email debate with some friends of mine over AGW. It’s hilarious that all this stuff is coming out, yet they still insist that the science is settled and/or we should cripple our economy just in case GW is real.

bitsy on February 27, 2010 at 11:30 AM

I live for the day Al Gore is being bitchslapped around in a congressional hearing and threatened with criminal charges.

gsherin on February 27, 2010 at 10:48 AM

My dream is Gore saying; “On the advice of counsel, I wish to envoke the fifth amendment protection against self incrimination.”

barnone on February 27, 2010 at 11:31 AM

To dismiss all scientific work related to climate change (as well as the anthropomorphic component) as “worthless” is unjustifiable. There is a massive amount of work related to climate change that has been done over decades of time and attemps to paint all related science and scientists with this broad brush of incompetence (or worse), Ed, lacks reason.

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 11:01 AM

Damn, dude… if you aren’t on meds you really, really need to have a competent adult take you to mental health facility right frickin’ now. Don’t mess around with the psychotic stuff.

trapeze on February 27, 2010 at 11:34 AM

To dismiss all scientific work related to climate change (as well as the anthropomorphic component) as “worthless” is unjustifiable. There is a massive amount of work related to climate change that has been done over decades of time and attemps to paint all related science and scientists with this broad brush of incompetence (or worse), Ed, lacks reason.

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 11:01 AM

Would you be willing to bet the life of a loved-one on the internal and referential integrity of ANY of the science conducted in the last ten or twelve years, knowing that even the most ethical of scientists may have use tainted information?

But consigning vast swaths of Earth’s population to grinding and brutal, if short existence of poverty in the very shadows of billion dollar machinery designed to “cleanse” the atmosphere of plant food is all good right?

Sorry, I was being dramatic. I know full well that actually doing anything about global warming is a carrot. The purpose of the exercise is to steal trillions from people who’d never vote for you anyway to ensure that the 51% who will vote for you are kept up, and of course the 10% that sticks in your own hands.

And you have the temerity to be disturbed by the visceral reaction of people with actual principled ethics to this kind of perversion? Shame on you.

Immolate on February 27, 2010 at 11:37 AM

To dismiss all scientific work related to climate change (as well as the anthropomorphic component) as “worthless” is unjustifiable. There is a massive amount of work related to climate change that has been done over decades of time and attemps to paint all related science and scientists with this broad brush of incompetence (or worse), Ed, lacks reason.

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 11:01 AM

It doesn’t lack reason and is completely justifiable. You are completely missing the point. This scandal shows that the peer review process in climate science is irretrievably corrupted by politics. Thus the chain of knowledge is broken and recent conclusions are completely unreliable. Climate science has to start over from where it was before the corruption took root. Furthermore, the burden of proof lies with climate scientists to show that their work going forward is not being influenced by politics.

Being a scientist ain’t an easy job. Integrity is more valuable than any paycheck. If you toss out your integrity, you might as well hang up your labcoat; your career is over.

bitsy on February 27, 2010 at 11:42 AM

After the UK finishes settling these phony scientists hash, maybe they can clean up their hospital horrors. They are supposed to be a civilized society and need to start taking their country back just as we are attempting. Start now, it won’t happen over night.

Kissmygrits on February 27, 2010 at 11:42 AM

I live for the day Al Gore is being bitchslapped around in a congressional hearing and threatened recieves criminal charges.

gsherin on February 27, 2010 at 10:48 AM

Fixed

IowaWoman on February 27, 2010 at 11:44 AM

Sooner or later, anyone with an IQ higher than that of a grape is going to admitted that AGW is more a religion than a scientific assertion. It is entirely based on the blind article of faith that human beings are a terrible problem and that there are way too many of “them” around, and that the idea of allowing “them” freedom only compounds the catastrophe.
(I highlight the word “them” because the other dominant characteristic of this group is the curious habit of referring to human beings as if they themselves weren’t a member of the group under discussion. “It’s those other human beings who are the problem, not me and my enlightened friends!”)
This isn’t science that builds conclusions from the evidence upward, this is propaganda that selects evidence to support a foregone conclusion and presses it down with whatever level of violence necessary to squash dissent. This is the very same “perverted science” that Winston Churchill referred to in his “Finest Hour” speech in the spring of 1940, in describing the Nazi regime then preparing it’s assault across the channel from newly-conquered France.
When you get right down to it, we’re still fighting the same old enemy we’ve been fighting for the last 2500 years. Those who just can’t stand the thought that average human beings have the right and the ability and the wisdom to run their own lives.
In other words; Freedom Works!

Lew on February 27, 2010 at 11:45 AM

To dismiss all scientific work related to climate change (as well as the anthropomorphic component) as “worthless” is unjustifiable. There is a massive amount of work related to climate change that has been done over decades of time and attemps to paint all related science and scientists with this broad brush of incompetence (or worse), Ed, lacks reason.

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 11:01 AM

It most certainly is justifiable and reasonable. The cre AGW church has hopelessly tainted its own credibility. Everything they say from here on will be deservedly met with suspicion and no one will or should trust any warmist claim at face value.

It’s as if they mixed an ounce of dog crap into a gallon of ice cream. Would you eat it or just throw the whole thing out and start over?

I think it’s a lot more than an ounce and I sure as hell wouldn’t let the same people make ice cream again.

RadClown on February 27, 2010 at 11:47 AM

To dismiss all scientific work related to climate change (as well as the anthropomorphic component) as “worthless” is unjustifiable. There is a massive amount of work related to climate change that has been done over decades of time and attemps to paint all related science and scientists with this broad brush of incompetence (or worse), Ed, lacks reason.

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 11:01 AM

If you substitute dirt for sand when your making concrete, it doesn’t matter how meticulous your processes are. Sure, there is real portland in there but it can never set or cure.

And this was never science, it was/is a socialist project to manage people.

BL@KBIRD on February 27, 2010 at 11:47 AM

Is this not always true for any scientific work? If there are “faulty assumptions”, competent scientists acting competently should spot them (and already have, in many cases).

AGW theories are works in progress and not “settled science” (despite Al Gore’s assertions). As more evidence becomes available, the theories are refined.

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 11:11 AM

Have you ever actually studied any hard physical science beyond the primary education level? If you havent spend at least 2 years at the university level in one of the physical sciences then you really need to recuse yourself from this discussion.

doriangrey on February 27, 2010 at 11:48 AM

Did algore hire axlerod to astroturf for him? Is cru and ipcc the result? If we can control energy and health care we can rule the world!

tim c on February 27, 2010 at 11:55 AM

Oakland-

do you have a Google alert set so that any time Hotair posts about AGW you know?

do you have ANY other interests?

GET A LIFE

CWforFreedom on February 27, 2010 at 11:59 AM

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 11:01 AM

If you lay down with dogs you should expect to wake up with fleas. Or as another old saying puts it “The companion of fools will suffer great harm.”

chemman on February 27, 2010 at 12:06 PM

I’m still waiting for your green CV Oakland. You know the pictures of solar panels and the wind generator that powers your house. The bicycle you use to compute and shop and the organic garden where you grow your own food to practice sustainable living. Otherwise go play someplace else you flaming hypocrite.

chemman on February 27, 2010 at 12:08 PM

This is the difference between hard science (physics) and soft-science (climate scientology).

This is also an illustration of why you find more conservatives, the harder the science, and why that ridiculous article about liberals having higher IQs is so laughable.

neurosculptor on February 27, 2010 at 12:10 PM

It’s Krippendorfer’s Tribe Syndrome. AGW people have it & the ignorant AGW worshippers are now finding out we were right all along.

Competent scientists have an interest in seeing that incompetence is brought to light, and that bad behavior is punished.

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 11:07 AM

And I cannot for the life of me figure out why more scientists haven’t been more vocal about all of this.

As always, telling the truth is very difficult & many don’t want to push the issue bcs it brings crap down on them.
So many knew the truth & though they did no wrongdoing, they are part of the problem bcs they stood silently by & did nothing.
Scientists need to start cleaning house. Big time.

Badger40 on February 27, 2010 at 12:11 PM

Scientists need to start cleaning house. Big time.

Badger40 on February 27, 2010 at 12:11 PM

And they need to do it in EVERY discipline.
Health, psychiatry, etc..
How many policies are determined by out of date or falsified conclusions?
How ’bout taking a look at diet & exercise data?
Food pyramid data?
Protein in diet data incorrelation with weight loss gain?

Badger40 on February 27, 2010 at 12:13 PM

And I cannot for the life of me figure out why more scientists haven’t been more vocal about all of this.

Badger40 on February 27, 2010 at 12:11 PM

Fear of reprisal and ridicule, even if not based in reality. It took people with extraordinary courage to speak out against something that the whole of academia had gotten behind – even though most of that support came from non-scientists and mathematical illiterates. Those math retards still control academia and could make life miserable for anyone who went against them.

neurosculptor on February 27, 2010 at 12:15 PM

“Consensus is totally irrelevant to science, but it’s very important to politics. Ask Galileo.”

~~ Fred Singer , Professor Emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia

RedPepper on February 27, 2010 at 12:15 PM

Does not the Chilean earthquake today provide that AGW is real?

WashJeff on February 27, 2010 at 12:21 PM

Consensus

From the Enviro Realist Dictionary .

Main Entry: con·sen·sus
Pronunciation: \kən-ˈsen(t)-səs\
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Latin, from consentire
Date: 1843
1 a : general agreement : unanimity <the consensus of their opinion, based on lies and inaccurate reports… b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned with making money and fear mongering
2 : group solidarity in sentiment and a religious belief used to find a purpose in life. Also used to push political goals.

CWforFreedom on February 27, 2010 at 12:21 PM

As the IoP makes clear, the UEA CRU and its many partners in the AGW movement committed intellectual and scientific fraud — and their conclusions should be viewed as worthless.

…AND self-serving. There should be criminal prosecution for fraud, and civil suits to compensate companies and populations around the world for the damage that this fraud caused to them.

We now have positive proof that there is a big difference between “scientific” and “UN-scientific”!

landlines on February 27, 2010 at 12:27 PM

So can we say “the evidence is settled”? AGW was a huge hoax? What law firm is conducting the class action suit against Al Gore?

truetexan on February 27, 2010 at 10:51 AM

My thoughts, exactly, truetexan!

I would surmise that humongous law suits are being prepared for filing, as we speak….and the numbers (no, not the climate change numbers) will be staggering. Among those targeted in said actions will be the Goreacle himself – for playing a key role in advancing, for personal gain, the Mother of all Hoaxes perpetrated on the world.

It couldn’t happen to a nicer guy!!

GoldenEagle4444 on February 27, 2010 at 12:27 PM

A
Gargantuan
Waste

…of time, energy, treasure, ink, paper, careers, cover-ups.

A theory this grandiose needs decades of serious study before anything is proposed as a possible “solution” for its purported “problems”.

The hysterical rush to DO SOMETHING NOW!!!!!!! should always raise skeptical red flags by the thousands.

profitsbeard on February 27, 2010 at 12:30 PM

I would add to my above comment that there are some brilliant hard scientists who support the fantasy of Anthropogenic Catastrophic Global Warming, like Chu at Energy, but they are emotional basket cases who think that their support makes them “cool” … finally. You can see this emotional problem of Chu’s, for example, with his moronic idea to paint everything white (and I guess we would have to get government issued sunglasses for everyone, if anyone were stupid enough to actually do that). Chu was riffing off of an old Von Neumann idea (partly in jest) to paint the Arctic dark in order to absorb lots of heat and stop global cooling, which was the rage at the time.

neurosculptor on February 27, 2010 at 12:39 PM

There is a massive amount of work related to climate change that has been done over decades of time and attemps to paint all related science and scientists with this broad brush of incompetence (or worse), Ed, lacks reason.
oakland on February 27, 2010 at 11:01 AM

If I fix a camera on the side of my house, and photograph the sun at noon every day for a year, on the same film, then I’ll have an interesting exposure of the sun doing a lopsided 8. That demonstrates the yaw of the earth’s axis.

The same phenomenon was demonstrated by measuring the shadow of a fixed pole at noon every day for a year.

If, however, you just take a photo of the sun with a camera phone at some point most days of the year, you end up with crap.

It’s not the massive amount of work that matters. It’s the disciplined observation that can be repeated to the same result. They lost the observations. That renders all the modelling done to explain the observations, the nice global CGI with generous shading of red as if the Earth was red hot–all that is bad science.

Sitting down and saying “OK, since we can’t know, let’s form consensus as to what the average global temperature was in 1997–based on what’s REASONABLE” is a political solution. It is not a scientific solution.

Chris_Balsz on February 27, 2010 at 12:43 PM

The loss of integrity among these scientists is consistent with the moral equivalence, moral decay, of western society. Many of us grew up with deep respect for scientists and the scientific method, drilled into us from grade school through high-school labs, and college for some, but we should have recognized that there is no integrity fence around science in today’s world. Everyone seems to have caught on now and is dealing with the new reality, except the Obama administration. Global warming, now climate change, is simply their most convenient vehicle for destroying our economy and taking control of our lives. They will keep riding this sham because there is no way at the moment to force them to stop. Perhaps this November’s elections will give us some tools with which to slow them down.

GaltBlvnAtty on February 27, 2010 at 12:43 PM

Those math retards still control academia and could make life miserable for anyone who went against them.

neurosculptor on February 27, 2010 at 12:15 PM

I agree & know about this.
But of course, there is no excuse for cowardice, no matter what form it comes in.
I lost an important job to my family & I once bcs I had to tell the truth.
In the end, nothing came of it bcs the community already knew what was going on.
And after my expose, they still chose to remain chugging along at their normal pace.
But I can sleep at night.

Badger40 on February 27, 2010 at 12:49 PM

Yes, there should be an investigation, and there are individuals within the scientific community that should be sanctioned (or even relieved of their positions)…

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 11:07 AM

LOL.

Translation: there are individuals that should receive a wrist slap (or even be shuffled around within their departments!)

haha

Lehosh on February 27, 2010 at 12:54 PM

There is a massive amount of work related to climate change that has been done over decades of time and attemps to paint all related science and scientists with this broad brush of incompetence (or worse), Ed, lacks reason.

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 11:01 AM

The Brinks Robbery was a “massive amount of work” over a long period of time. By your logic, does this mean we can’t paint the perpetrators with the broad brush characterization “thief”?

A “massive amount of work” cannot turn something which is false into something which is true.

Oakland, you need a remedial course in logic.

landlines on February 27, 2010 at 1:00 PM

To dismiss all scientific work related to climate change (as well as the anthropomorphic component) as “worthless” is unjustifiable. There is a massive amount of work related to climate change that has been done over decades of time and attemps to paint all related science and scientists with this broad brush of incompetence (or worse), Ed, lacks reason.

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 11:01 AM

How’s that mission working out for ya?

I suspect you may have some time vested in brainwashing students that you fear may back splash on you. Correct?

Yoop on February 27, 2010 at 1:04 PM

Well, you see, we live in a time that the very truth is tabboo.

This is exactly as the Stateist and Globalist want it. How else can they nudge us into submission to tyranny.

It all starts as innocently not being able to call a tard a tard. First they control our speech then our minds and eventually our will.

TheSitRep on February 27, 2010 at 1:12 PM

This scandal shows that the peer review process in climate science is irretrievably corrupted by politics.

In what scientific endeavor is politics absent? In which area of scientific studies has there been no “scandal”? If, by the actions of relatively few one completely abandons trust in the entire community, where does one go for answers; those who espouse completely the opposite view? Is this sound thinking? If so, then why haven’t folks completely given up on the drug industry for marketing drugs that were subsequently shown to be unsafe, or the medical profession for allowing incompetent physicians to continue to practice (or those that have a vested interest in promoting certain medical practices)?

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 1:15 PM

What do these people know, it’s not like they are scientist scientists. They don’t even work for the U.N.

Oldnuke on February 27, 2010 at 10:45 AM

ROFL!!!

Al is still hiding under his bed, sucking his thumb, while Tipper throws his blankie in the wash.

capejasmine on February 27, 2010 at 1:17 PM

I suspect you may have some time vested in brainwashing students that you fear may back splash on you. Correct?

Don’t quite know what you mean by “brainwashing students”. Perhaps you could clarify.

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 1:18 PM

Oakland – i see you still have not found life. What a bore. A no-nothing with only one interest.

CWforFreedom on February 27, 2010 at 1:18 PM

landlines on February 27, 2010 at 1:00 P

M

oakland weirdly you have avoided landlines point. hmmmm

CWforFreedom on February 27, 2010 at 1:19 PM

They lost the observations. That renders all the modelling done to explain the observations, the nice global CGI with generous shading of red as if the Earth was red hot–all that is bad science.

What observations have been “lost”? And, who is “they”? If you are referring to temperature observations and other measurements of weather, you can find data from several sources and review them for yourself.

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 1:21 PM

As the IoP makes clear, the UEA CRU and its many partners in the AGW movement committed intellectual and scientific fraud — and their conclusions should be viewed as worthless.
To dismiss all scientific work related to climate change (as well as the anthropomorphic component) as “worthless” is unjustifiable. There is a massive amount of work related to climate change that has been done over decades of time and attemps to paint all related science and scientists with this broad brush of incompetence (or worse), Ed, lacks reason.

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 11:01 AM

It isn’t Ed who is calling this “scientific malpractice”!

It is the Institute of Physics!

This is the worst condemnation yet. And the motivation is not to discount AGW. It is to preserve the integrity of the scientific method!

Most all of the world wide science used the historical data provided by East Anglia.

There was one base of historical measurements… and East Anglia destroyed the raw data to protect their conclusions from the eyes of fellow scientists.

petunia on February 27, 2010 at 1:21 PM

In what scientific endeavor is politics absent?

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 1:15 PM

Mathematics and highly mathematicized areas of science that depend on the actual construction of mathematical proofs. Computer modeling for prediction does not fall into that category, though it gives the appearance of being mathematicized to the layman, and computer models’ ridiculous predictions have formed the bulk of the “data” (*cough*) driving Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming idiocy.

neurosculptor on February 27, 2010 at 1:21 PM

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 1:21 PM

You’re kilgore troutfish, aren’t you? Go back to little snotballs.

neurosculptor on February 27, 2010 at 1:23 PM

WashJeff on February 27, 2010 at 12:21 PM

I believe so. The Ocean Level around Hawaii is expected to rise around 4:30pm EST today.

IT’S AGW I TELLS YA!!!

PappaMac on February 27, 2010 at 1:23 PM

AGW died a little when they refused to divulge their methodology to qualified peers. AGW died a little more when they ‘lost’ the original data. AGW keeled over and hit the floor when they denied FOIA requests. The corpse began to assume room temperature when they conspired to delete emails. AGW as a scientifically supported proposition is dead. The political corpse totters on, gibbering.

SurferDoc on February 27, 2010 at 1:25 PM

Thank God for the Brit physicists. I am truly proud of these people. The Americans did have a massive petition project that had 31486 scientists protest the Kyoto treaty of 1997 and any others – I am very proud of them too. However, the American Institute of Physics (I belonged ages ago) jumped on the global warming bandwagon. I am deeply ashamed of them. We have three major guilty groups who perpetuate this man- and culture- killing religion: the UN, the Brits (authors of climategate), and Americans (including Gore, Hansen, Mann, mass media – including news and so called entertainment). We do have one lonely senator from Oklahoma (Inhofe) who has intelligence, honor, and guts. I am an American physicist and want to see more American scientists and politicians stand up to the bad guys. I want a future for my grandkids.

MoGal on February 27, 2010 at 1:29 PM

Mathematics and highly mathematicized areas of science that depend on the actual construction of mathematical proofs. Computer modeling for prediction does not fall into that category

I would respectfully disagree. As one who has done mathematical modelling with computer technology, I can see the value (and also many of the limitations) of computer modelling. If we don’t trust physical modelling, we have no business riding in aircraft or most any other vehicle, taking medicines, buying appliances that incorporate any type of heat exchanger, or any number of other technologies that have been created with the assistance of modelling. Modelling, as a practice, is not intended to generate “proofs”, but merely to allow for greater predictability than would otherwise be allowed.

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 1:30 PM

It isn’t Ed who is calling this “scientific malpractice”!

It is the Institute of Physics!

Please refer to Ed’s comments at the top.

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 1:33 PM

“the UEA CRU and its many partners in the AGW movement committed intellectual and scientific fraud — and their conclusions should be viewed as worthless.”

And it’s confined to that if they did it on their own dimes. However if they used taxpayer monies, then add criminal fraud.

Dusty on February 27, 2010 at 1:37 PM

It’s as if they mixed an ounce of dog crap into a gallon of ice cream. Would you eat it or just throw the whole thing out and start over?

I think it’s a lot more than an ounce and I sure as hell wouldn’t let the same people make ice cream again.

RadClown on February 27, 2010 at 11:47 AM

I love this analogy! I have to use this in my classroom! LOL!
I think oakland may be a little naieve about how far this stuff has affected all scientific disciplines.
A woman I was taking a ‘teacher seminar’ class from (think she has a PhD in Physics or Physical Science )talked about how the science was settled on the AGW question & her husband is a soil scientist (teaches some geology courses too) at this small 4 yr college.
Many PhD people I have met cannot tell their butt from a hole in the ground.
PhDs are a dime a dozen.
Some work hard for them, some do not.
You do not need a PhD to be able to refute a scientist’s data & conclusions, as long as you are educated enough (college or self taught) to get it.
It is the same problem that I see in ranching: people calling themselves cowboys or ranchers who have no clue about what they are doing, even if they’ve been doing it their whole lives.
You can be a scientist, but it doesn’t mean that you know what you are doing.
The dog crap in the ice cream is science in general.
All work needs to be gone over AGAIN.
But then, that is science.
Scientists have been taking each other’s word for it too long.
They need to get busy & start criticizing each other.

Badger40 on February 27, 2010 at 1:40 PM

It is the Institute of Physics!

Petunia:

You might be interested in this from the IoP site, if you value their perspective:

“Scientists’ understanding of the fundamental processes responsible for global climate change has greatly improved during the last decade, including better representation of carbon, water, and other biogeochemical cycles in climate models. Yet, model projections of future global warming vary, because of differing estimates of population growth, economic activity, greenhouse gas emission rates, changes in atmospheric particulate concentrations and their effects, and also because of uncertainties in climate models. Actions that decrease emissions of some air pollutants will reduce their climate effects in the short term. Even so, the impacts of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations would remain.

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 1:40 PM

If, by the actions of relatively few one completely abandons trust in the entire community, where does one go for answers;…

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 1:15 PM

We go to the EVIDENCE provided by reproducible SCIENTIFIC experiments designed to prove or disprove the theory. The “reproducible” requirement guards against bias or fraud (aka “politics”).

Note that exercise of this methodology DEMANDS that all data and methodology be freely shared and subject to examination by all.

This leads us to truth…regardless of what the “concensus” may be at the time.

This is why we no longer accept a “flat earth” (disproved by experiments conducted by Columbus et al), and why we accept nuclear physics (Einstein et al) as a better and more accurate explanation of to things formerly explained by Newtonian mechanics.

And this is also how we know that people who hide and/or will not share data do not believe in, and are not practicing “science.”

landlines on February 27, 2010 at 1:45 PM

If we don’t trust physical modelling, we have no business riding in aircraft or most any other vehicle, taking medicines, buying appliances that incorporate any type of heat exchanger, or any number of other technologies that have been created with the assistance of modelling. Modelling, as a practice, is not intended to generate “proofs”, but merely to allow for greater predictability than would otherwise be allowed.

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 1:30 PM

Modeling is only a step in creating something.
Eventually you have to see if it applies in the real world.
That is why, like with a bridge, you have to make a physical model at some point & put it through the tests.
When it’s something less tangible, it needs to be tested so rigorously that there is virtually no doubt-like when it almost gets toward scientific law-hood, or at the very least it has reached theory stage-I mean scientific theory stage-tons of experimental set ups,conclusions, & observed phenomena all contributing to the ‘consensus’.
I understand your defending modeling.
But a models can be found to be useless bcs the assumptions that they were based on turned out to be wrong or a lie.

Badger40 on February 27, 2010 at 1:45 PM

Modelling, as a practice, is not intended to generate “proofs”, but merely to allow for greater predictability than would otherwise be allowed.

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 1:30 PM

For global warming, the modeling was “the proof”. That, and the Vostok data, which actually showed quite the opposite of what the global warming maniacs wanted to claim, though the warming nuts couldn’t see the forest for their insane obssession with the CO2 data – which the Vostok data also showed to be a lagging factor.

Modeling serves as an adjunct to other experimental data and mathematical theory. This is not what happened with the global warming idiots. I used to challenge them, from the very beginning, to explain why their modeling for a highly dynamical, complex system should be trusted more than econometric models – which had a much longer history, more money invested in them, and much better brains working on them – and econometric models are still sh!t for prediction outside of the very short-term, and they still do worse than humans in those predictions. Not one econometric/financial model was warning anyone about the credit crisis, though there were many people who did. The global warming nuts used to love to just ignore that, because it didn’t fit their idiocy.

Frankly, it is the saddest irony of “science” that these insane and ridiculously lame computer models used for long-term predictions came from, essentially, Lorenz’s field. That is the most pathetic point of this global warming pseudo-science.

neurosculptor on February 27, 2010 at 1:47 PM

Why does the coffee party hate science?

daesleeper on February 27, 2010 at 1:47 PM

But a models can be found to be useless bcs the assumptions that they were based on turned out to be wrong or a lie.

Yes, and I believe that you will see refinements in models as attempts are made to better fit the observations as well as to incorporate feedback mechanisms into the mix more appropriately.

I don’t think you will find any scientist that is satisfied with the present models, which are, in part, constrained by the amount of computing power available to execute them.

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 1:48 PM

Modelling, as a practice, is not intended to generate “proofs”, but merely to allow for greater predictability than would otherwise be allowed.
oakland on February 27, 2010 at 1:30 PM

So global warming is not proven; it’s just a hypothesis with a finite probability?

Chris_Balsz on February 27, 2010 at 1:50 PM

It is the Institute of Physics!
Petunia:

You might be interested in this from the IoP site, if you value their perspective:

“Scientists’ understanding of the fundamental processes responsible for global climate change has greatly improved during the last decade, including better representation of carbon, water, and other biogeochemical cycles in climate models. Yet, model projections of future global warming vary, because of differing estimates of population growth, economic activity, greenhouse gas emission rates, changes in atmospheric particulate concentrations and their effects, and also because of uncertainties in climate models. Actions that decrease emissions of some air pollutants will reduce their climate effects in the short term. Even so, the impacts of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations would remain.

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 1:40 PM

Since they are true believers… that makes their pronouncement that the destruction of THE raw data on which ALL climate science is based, is “scientific malpractice” all the more damning!

Much of the scientific world is still in denial about the evidence. It will take time for them to come to terms with the fact that this most treasured religious doctrine has been proven a fraud.

Only then. After they all realize they must start over. Will we be able to know if there is anything to worry about.

There may still be AGW. But we have no real evidence to base public policy decisions on.

petunia on February 27, 2010 at 1:51 PM

The problem with the models is not the computer power–it is the quality of the data. GIGO.

SurferDoc on February 27, 2010 at 1:55 PM

A good scientific mindset would allow for the possibility that the theory might end up totally debunked.

Disturb the Universe on February 27, 2010 at 11:27 AM

Human activities no doubt play some part in climate. Soot on ice warms it. Billions of humans and farm animals pass lots of methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas. Then there’s land use. Oh yeah, Co2 too.

What we don’t know is how these variables interact with a multitude of natural factors that make up the very complex symphony of climate. People that say they know for sure that man has no effect on climate are just as full of of it as those that claim they know mankind is responsible for the modest climb in temperatures.

Having said that, the IPCC needs to go. Mann, Briffa and the whole “hockey team” should find other careers. They are a disgrace to science.

toliver on February 27, 2010 at 1:55 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3