Personally, I think the former is the greater ethical breach. Let me explain why.
Senators (or for that matter politicians in general) are so notorious for selling out to special interests, nearly everything they say is suspect.
Scientists, on the other hand, have been held in high esteem because they're perceived to be motivated not by greed, power or political advocacy, but rather by a higher calling: a clearer understanding of the physical universe based on the scientific method.
If ClimateGate has taught us anything, it's that scientists are all too human, too. At a minimum, we've learned that scientists at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia are back-biting, snarky people who are willing to undermine the credibility of the peer review process in order to further their theories and destroy the careers of those whose research contradicts their findings. (e.g. From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004 "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!")
Is the science of climate change really settled, or has the process been rigged?
Other emails have revealed an even more sinister behavior. The "Mike's Nature trick" email to "hide the decline" might be explained away by assigning different meanings to words like "trick" and "decline" ("It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."), but how do you explain this one?
From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009 "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate"
(Here's a link to some of the more contentious emails.)
Beyond the emails, a file that has been generally overlooked is "harry_read_me.txt" - a three-year running commentary by a computer programmer (most likely CRU's own staff member, Ian "Harry" Harris), trying desparately to make sense of the software that's used to crunch the numbers of climate change. If there is a smoking gun, this is it. If the tool used to conduct the research is flawed, then all bets are off.
I've always been a global warming skeptic (as opposed to a denier). Anthropengic global warming may well exist, but to what extent, and to what extent can we alter it?
By "tweaking the numbers," what the authors of the ClimateGate documents have done is put the entire scientific method in question, opening the door to those who would throw the baby out with the bath water.
ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED. And neither will racist,homophobic, or misogynistic comments. I do not mind if you disagree, but make your case in a decent manner.
Political Cartoon is by David Horsey in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
Personally, I think the former is the greater ethical breach. Let me explain why.
ReplyDeleteSenators (or for that matter politicians in general) are so notorious for selling out to special interests, nearly everything they say is suspect.
Scientists, on the other hand, have been held in high esteem because they're perceived to be motivated not by greed, power or political advocacy, but rather by a higher calling: a clearer understanding of the physical universe based on the scientific method.
If ClimateGate has taught us anything, it's that scientists are all too human, too. At a minimum, we've learned that scientists at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia are back-biting, snarky people who are willing to undermine the credibility of the peer review process in order to further their theories and destroy the careers of those whose research contradicts their findings. (e.g. From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004 "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!")
Is the science of climate change really settled, or has the process been rigged?
Other emails have revealed an even more sinister behavior. The "Mike's Nature trick" email to "hide the decline" might be explained away by assigning different meanings to words like "trick" and "decline" ("It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."), but how do you explain this one?
From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate"
(Here's a link to some of the more contentious emails.)
Beyond the emails, a file that has been generally overlooked is "harry_read_me.txt" - a three-year running commentary by a computer programmer (most likely CRU's own staff member, Ian "Harry" Harris), trying desparately to make sense of the software that's used to crunch the numbers of climate change. If there is a smoking gun, this is it. If the tool used to conduct the research is flawed, then all bets are off.
I've always been a global warming skeptic (as opposed to a denier). Anthropengic global warming may well exist, but to what extent, and to what extent can we alter it?
By "tweaking the numbers," what the authors of the ClimateGate documents have done is put the entire scientific method in question, opening the door to those who would throw the baby out with the bath water.
And that is unconscionable.
P.S. If you want to read about a scientist who did it right, see "A scientist who didn't 'hide the decline'".
ReplyDelete