Here is aforensic look at the leaked data which goes far beyond emails, and shows a complete disregard for the truth and a cynical manipulation in order to obtain the result they were looking for. No amount of whitewash can cover the extent of the fiddling that has been revealed. It is nothing short of a breathtaking scandal which does to science what the expenses scandal has done for UK politics. But this can only get the impact it deserves if a supine media gives it the coverage needed. The problem is that only statistics experts can understand the extent of the scandal and it may be covered up by those who believe (wrongly) that they are doing so in order to 'save the planet'.
More on the computer code reveals further examples.
On just the most oft-cited example of "trick" - if I do a citation search for "trick" in article titles, I get just short of a 1000. I'm a modeller, I use tricks all the time myself. The word itself, clearly, doesn't mean anything particularly sinister. If Monckton wants to make a case against the validity of the method, he should stick to that.
ReplyDeleteI also don't trust Monckton, simply because he used the "we have to get rid of the medieval warming period" email claim to discredit scientists. If you Google that phrase, there are just short of 200,000 hits. Not one that I've found so far even asks the most basic questions: was the email genuine? If so, what was the context of the full question?
As it turns out, there's an email in the leaks from the person who was implied to have said the above: they have no memory of writing it. It troubles me that skeptics like Monckton should travel the world using this one email as proof that real scientists are working to falsify the record, without actually examining that claim in any depth. It comes across as baseless slandering. I mean - there's no evidence it's true, is there? And imagine the reverse: if Al Gore had claimed a leading skeptic had emailed him to say "we've got to get rid of the hockey stick." Skeptics would be demanding to see the full email, wouldn't they? At the very least.
I think seeing evil in the CRU mails requires one to already heavily distrust the scientists in question, and to read the worst into it. The worst I can get from them is FOI obstruction - but then, they received nearly 80 requests in the space of 7 days from climateaudit. Scientists often ask for data, and are given it (this is also in the emails, if you look) if it's for genuine research. No FOI needed.
I guess we'll see how this pans out, but we already know Monckton thinks scientists and the IPCC are 'just another special interest lobby group' - I'm not sure I trust him to represent science fairly.
It's not the word "trick" that is a problem it is the context in which it was used. You only have to read the emails to realise that these scientists were working towards their own agenda. You say you don't trust Monckton, but do you think the public will trust the IPCC or these scientists?
ReplyDelete