PDA

View Full Version : Climategate mirrors Duke Lacross frenzy



wilbur
12-07-2009, 11:15 AM
A well articulated blog post here, about the absolute insanity demonstrated in the Climategate frenzy... and cautions those who are, with extreme hubris coupled with little to no real solid information, have declared - no.. shouted with rabid foaming mouths - that they have been vindicated. Once the dust has settled, investigations have taken place, its a very real, and even likely possibility that it will be them who is left with the black eye and lost credibility.



Witch hunts go in stages. First frenzy, when everybody damns the souls of people they don’t know. Then confusion, as the first wave of contradictory facts comes in. Then deafening silence, as everybody studiously ignores the vicious slanders they uttered during the moment of maximum hysteria.




Certainly statements like these, coming from scientists, are very concerning, not to mention embarrassing. But they are not smoking-gun evidence of fraud. Those of us who have done research and published papers, or just worked with scientists, probably recognize some of the chatter as the normal kinds of discussions that happen in the messy process of science. Using a “trick” can simply be a euphemism (although poorly chosen) to refer to a statistical method. And “hide the decline” can simply refer to making a complex graph of data look better.

But there can be a fine line between analyzing data and “massaging” the data. So as I said – such statements are concerning, but potentially innocent, and should be independently investigated – but not prematurely condemned.

What about e-mails about refusing freedom of information (FOI) request for the raw data, and the accusations that the CRU “destroyed” their raw data? Again, very concerning – as a rule raw data should always be preserved, and should be made available for independent analysis. No one can reasonable deny this. But the emerging story is more complex.

For example, Jeff Masters explains that resistance to FOI requests was not an attempt to conceal fraud, but was resistance to harassing trivial requests by amateurs who were putting an undue burden on the data managers. In fact they suspected that some of the requests were meant to distract them from their work and eat up their resources.

I don’t know if this is true, but it is a plausible alternate explanation. It does reveal the “bunker mentality” that the CRU scientists had developed, and no matter how this shakes out that is a problem that needs to be addressed.

....

Again – I have not seen confirmation of this latter claim, and I await the investigation and the revelations that will come in the next few months. But if true it potentially eliminates the accusation that data was destroyed as part of a cover up.

...

But I doubt that the maximally hysterical pronouncements of the extreme AGW dissidents, for whom this scandal was an instant confirmation of all their darkest accusations, will pan out. It seems highly unlikely that climategate will change the consensus of scientific opinion on AGW. It also seems unlikely that the degree of fraud that is being accused has in fact occurred.

One reason for this opinion is that, after pouring through thousands of e-mails, these are the worst that the AGW dissidents can come up with. The lack of more compelling evidence for fraud is itself very telling.

I don’t know what the lessons of climategate are yet – we need to see what actually happened first. But how people deal with climategate says a lot about their process. Those who are making bold claims based upon ambiguous, circumstantial, and out-of-context evidence, are not doing themselves or their side any favors.


More at link:

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=1336

lacarnut
12-07-2009, 11:46 AM
Climate change is real. Climate warming is bogus according to thousands of Scientists. Looks like some of these climate freaks have been cooking the data.

wilbur
12-07-2009, 11:48 AM
Climate change is real. Climate warming is bogus according to thousands of Scientists.

Quite a misleading statement, but not really relevant to the OP.

FlaGator
12-07-2009, 11:49 AM
The difference is that there was no evidence validating that a rape had taken place, only the false claim of the woman accuser. The the case of Climategate, there happens to be hundreds of emails confirming a conspiracy to marginalize and eliminate AGW detractors and their counter-claims. There is some evidence that scientists fudged data in order to generate models more closely aligned with the pro AGW view.

wilbur
12-07-2009, 11:55 AM
The difference is that there was no evidence validating that a rape had taken place, only the false claim of the woman accuser. The the case of Climategate, there happens to be hundreds of emails confirming a conspiracy to marginalize and eliminate AGW detractors and their counter-claims. There is some evidence that scientists fudged data in order to generate models more closely aligned with the pro AGW view.

In this case, we have little more than the unjustified, and as of yet, totally unsupported accusations of AGW skeptics.

Seriously, compare the weight and current "state of the evidence", to the rhetoric emanating from the skeptic contingent. What kind of evidence does one need to make a witch-hunt justified?

Jfor
12-07-2009, 12:01 PM
Wilbur, every time I don't think you could get any more stupid, you post something else. Comparing the frauds who prepare reports for the IPCC to the Duke lacrosse players is absolutely disgusting. You have on one hand "scientists" trying cover their asses. On the other, you have young men who were vilified because one woman says she was raped when ALL the evidence showed they were lying. You sir, are a disgusting individual.

lacarnut
12-07-2009, 12:04 PM
In this case, we have little more than the unjustified, and as of yet, totally unsupported accusations of AGW skeptics.

Seriously, compare the weight and current "state of the evidence", to the rhetoric emanating from the skeptic contingent. What kind of evidence does one need to make a witch-hunt justified?

It's in black and white e-mails. However, if you want to change the meaning of what the word is, is, I can not help you.

wilbur
12-07-2009, 12:04 PM
Wilbur, every time I don't think you could get any more stupid, you post something else. Comparing the frauds who prepare reports for the IPCC to the Duke lacrosse players is absolutely disgusting. You have on one hand "scientists" trying cover their asses. On the other, you have young men who were vilified because one woman says she was raped when ALL the evidence showed they were lying. You sir, are a disgusting individual.

Time will tell, wont it.

Goldwater
12-07-2009, 12:08 PM
Each side is saying they have "thousands of scientists."