C'mon, Willis - tell 'em what you really think!
The key to restoring trust has nothing to do with communication. Steve McIntyre doesn’t inspire trust because he is a good communicator. He inspires trust because he follows the age-old practices of science — transparency and openness and freewheeling scientific discussion and honest reporting of results.
And until mainstream climate science follows his lead, I’ll let you in on a very dark, ugly secret — I don’t want trust in climate science to be restored. I don’t want you learning better ways to propagandize for shoddy science. I don’t want you to figure out how to inspire trust by camouflaging your unethical practices in new and innovative ways. I don’t want scientists learning to use clever words and communication tricks to get people to think that the wound is healed until it actually is healed. I don’t want you to learn to use the blogosphere to spread your pernicious unsupported unscientific alarmism.
Related: Other great moments in pernicious unsupported unscientific alarmism.
Ladies and gentlemen , the new and improved hockeystick .
These statist scumbags, I mean scientists, have been purveying this garbage science for forty years or more. To think, they almost pulled it off and will still attempt to do so.
Pachauri is the steriotypical "climate scientist"....a civil service bureaucrat with no expertise beyond networking and propaganda.....and no scruples.
There in lies the problem.....they are not scientists.....they are leftist activists and leftist bureaucrats....or both.
The whole point of the scientific method is that it is supposed to make trust a non-issue. Because all the data and all the methodology is available, you don't have to trust that the guys in the lab coats did it right. You can read the thing yourself and figure it out, or take it to some other disinterested but skilled party and have them check it for you. If you come across something that you cannot check, then the safest course is disbelief, 'cause someone's trying to pull the wool over your eyes.
To trust science is to hand over your life to a bunch of technocrats, who are every bit as self-interested and power hungry as the rest of the human population.
Trust should be reserved for priests, not experts.
JSchuler didn't you get the memo? Expert scientists ARE the new priests. If you don't believe it just ask their peers.
Strange, no matter what the climate problem seems to be, you can always find "scientists" and "experts" whose mindsets are not that far removed from Pol Pot's when it comes to finding the quickest and least costly solutions.
"A sensor in Redding, Calif., is housed in a box that also contains a halogen light bulb, which could emit warmth directly onto the gauge." Heh.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/26/climate-data-compromised-by-heat-sources/
Perhaps both scientist and elected politicians should have an enforceable code of ethics similar to professional engineers. If caught violating the public trust - fines and license revoked!
He's being way too kind to Judith....
""""– by the search for new sources of financial support.”""""
that little quote, from the "related" link says it all
actually OMMAG, if you can win some of the MODERATE faux scientists over to the good side it is better than pi$$ing off all the scientists
and Senator Inhoe (spelling) is trying to get Algore in for a grilling, and that would be good, as he can't lie with impunity before senate committee
Senator Jim Inhofe.
Flies + Honey ...... versus Vinegar argument eh?
I'll mix the metaphor some...
It's all well and good to offer an olive branch but if the offer is tossed aside then the next thing offered should be a fist. Then a boot on the throat.
A relentless pounding of exposure and hopefully embarrassment for these people who have disgraced what should be a respected and noble calling.
These people need to understand that there is a price to pay for such a failing and betrayal.
If some are willing to admit the failing and get serious about working to renew their credibility then fine.
For those who cling to the betrayal .... no mercy.
Here is an excerpt from Fox News today about Anthony Watts' great work on the climate data system in the US: "So far we've surveyed 1,062 of them," said Anthony Watts, a meteorologist who began the tracking effort in 2007. "We found that 90 percent of them don't meet [the government's] old, simple rule called the '100-foot rule' for keeping thermometers 100 feet or more from biasing influence. Ninety percent of them failed that, and we've got documentation."
Watts, who has posted pictures of the sensors on his Web site, surfacestations.org, says he believes that the location of the sensors renders their recorded temperatures inaccurate, which in turn brings some of the data behind global warming theory into question.
"It's asinine to think that this wouldn't have some kind of an effect," Watts told FoxNews.com.
It is great to see Anthony's work get the notice it deserves, although I think it has crashed his server at the moment. His other site, wattsupwiththat.com is still up. Now the National Climate Data Center folks admit that a lot of sites are bad but claim they can make adjustments to the data that give an accurate picture, showing warming of course. How could anyone believe them? They even claim the changes made to the system back in the 1980's and 1990's actually led to cooler readings. How could this be when the sites were moved in much closer to buildings, cement, and asphalt? Many sites in rural, high altitude, and more northerly areas were also dropped about 1990. There are also a lot of adjustments made to raw data that seem very questionable, unless the goal is to "cool" the past and make the present look warmer than it is. It is going to be fun to watch this whole house of cards collapse.
Of course they'll adjust the data to exclude the heat-island influence!
(Nudge-nudge, wink-wink)
2.4 Institutions like the IPCC need to ask how they enabled this situation.
Judith Curry is still enabling a lie here, among other lies.
No, the IPCC won't ask that.
The IPCC knows why it was created.
It was created to do just exactly what it has been and is still doing.
The IPCC, a political organization, was created to put a scientific face on a radical anti-democratic political agenda in order to sell that agenda to the masses.
Scrap the IPCC.
There have been a few calls from the more naive amoung the AGW alarmists for the scientists to be totally open with their data and methodology in order to clearly show the public the facts about climate change and thus win back the public trust.
They'll never do that. Those who are behind the push for action on climate change are well aware that their data won't stand up to scrutiny. The last thing they would ever do is provide the skeptics with the proof that it's all a scam.