PDA

View Full Version : Scientists "Pressured" to Defend Climate Research



djones520
12-10-2009, 02:09 AM
Britain's Met Office has embarked on an urgent exercise to bolster the reputation of climate-change science after the furor over leaked e-mails, referred to as "Climate-gate."

More than 1,700 scientists have agreed to sign a statement defending the "professional integrity" of global warming research. They were responding to a round-robin request from the Met Office, which has spent four days collecting signatures. The initiative is a sign of how worried it is that e-mails stolen from the University of East Anglia are fueling skepticism about man-made global warming at a critical moment in talks on carbon emissions.

One scientist said that he felt under pressure to sign the circular or risk losing work. The Met Office admitted that many of the signatories did not work on climate change.

John Hirst, the Met Office chief executive, and Julia Slingo, its chief scientist, wrote to 70 colleagues on Sunday asking them to sign "to defend our profession against this unprecedented attack to discredit us and the science of climate change." They asked them to forward the petition to colleagues to generate support "for a simple statement that we ... have the utmost confidence in the science base that underpins the evidence for global warming."

Met Office reports on temperature changes draw on the work of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, from which the e-mails were hacked. Phil Jones, unit director, has agreed to stand down while an investigation takes place into claims that he manipulated data to exaggerate the warming trend and tried to block publication of alternative views.

One scientist told The Times of London he felt pressure to sign. "The Met Office is a major employer of scientists and has long had a policy of only appointing and working with those who subscribe to their views on man-made global warming," he said.

The work of true science here. :rolleyes:

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2009/12/09/pressure-defend-climate-gate-scientists/

SarasotaRepub
12-10-2009, 07:34 AM
Too funny! Gee, nothing fishy here eh Wilbur.

These "scientists" don't give a damn about what the average Joe
thinks about this. They DO care where their next grant is coming from though.

Sorry Wilbur but the actions of the Climate Kooks just make me more and more
sure that Global Warming or whatever the hell it's called at the moment is
nothing but BullShit that is keeping a lot of people employed. And that would be
fine if that's all it was...

Nubs
12-10-2009, 12:18 PM
If the scientists that signed the "declaration of integrity" failed to review the studies in question, they have, by scientific dictum, failed to practice scientific integrity.

FlaGator
12-10-2009, 12:36 PM
At least some of those being pressured are speaking up. Why force someone to sign a document that they feel is questionable if something strange isn't afoot in the AGW Club? Can't their science stand on its own merits?

wilbur
12-13-2009, 12:02 AM
Not saying two wrongs make a right... but its interesting how you guys are on this stuff like white on rice, but totally ignore all incessant complains about GWB during his presidency, and how his administration pressured scientists to suppress climate data unflattering to the right wing GW manifesto.

Simple do a google search on something like "bush administration pressure science global warming" (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=bush+administration+pressure+science+global+warm ing) and have a field day reading.

Given the consistency with which I point out obscene errors, bias, or overall lack of substance and/or meaningful content in the articles that most of you consume in nearly every instance where I choose to investigate the matter further, I am highly skeptical of the claims in this one - though I certainly entertain the possibility that they might be accurate. But that remains to be seen.

Its beyond me what goes on in your heads that prevents you from seeing the obscene bias that most of you demonstrate on a daily basis on this site... where every single instance or report that seems to support AGW skepticism gets a free backstage pass to your cerebral cortex, and ANYTHING.... ANYTHING at all that isnt an example of radical skepticism bounces right off without a glace (and with much hostility). And then its me who gets lectured about being brainwashed and gullible! Heh... Utterly astounding.

Oceander
12-13-2009, 01:10 AM
Not saying two wrongs make a right... but its interesting how you guys are on this stuff like white on rice, but totally ignore all incessant complains about GWB during his presidency, and how his administration pressured scientists to suppress climate data unflattering to the right wing GW manifesto.

Simple do a google search on something like "bush administration pressure science global warming" (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=bush+administration+pressure+science+global+warm ing) and have a field day reading.

Given the consistency with which I point out obscene errors, bias, or overall lack of substance and/or meaningful content in the articles that most of you consume in nearly every instance where I choose to investigate the matter further, I am highly skeptical of the claims in this one - though I certainly entertain the possibility that they might be accurate. But that remains to be seen.

Its beyond me what goes on in your heads that prevents you from seeing the obscene bias that most of you demonstrate on a daily basis on this site... where every single instance or report that seems to support AGW skepticism gets a free backstage pass to your cerebral cortex, and ANYTHING.... ANYTHING at all that isnt an example of radical skepticism bounces right off without a glace (and with much hostility). And then its me who gets lectured about being brainwashed and gullible! Heh... Utterly astounding.

Uh-oh, some-one had a raw nerve touched, didn't he; tsk, tsk, tsk - the truth hurts, don't it?

FlaGator
12-13-2009, 07:57 AM
<snip>
Simple do a google search on something like "bush administration pressure science global warming" (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=bush+administration+pressure+science+global+warm ing) and have a field day reading.
<snip>


And these complaints about the Bush administration putting pressure on AGW scientists comes from the same group that is now being accused of faking data and shutting out those who disagree with their conclusions for the debate on AGW. Not a very trustworthy group.

wilbur
12-13-2009, 09:30 AM
And these complaints about the Bush administration putting pressure on AGW scientists comes from the same group that is now being accused of faking data and shutting out those who disagree with their conclusions for the debate on AGW. Not a very trustworthy group.

So, in your research you've found that all these scientists who felt pressure under the Bush admin were simply employees of the British CRU?

FlaGator
12-13-2009, 02:32 PM
So, in your research you've found that all these scientists who felt pressure under the Bush admin were simply employees of the British CRU?

I didn't know that Michael Mann of Penn State University worked for the CRU. I thought he just collaborated with them. I also didn't realize that he was British? :rolleyes:

PoliCon
12-13-2009, 02:39 PM
I didn't know that Michael Mann of Penn State University worked for the CRU. I thought he just collaborated with them. I also didn't realize that he was British? :rolleyes:

You mean . . . . is it possible? Could it actually be that the Bush administration was only actually trying to get the same people to come clean about their cooking of the books and cherry picking of data? :eek: