Mere end uhæderlighed?

Diverse — Drokles on November 25, 2009 at 7:43 pm

Videnskabshistorikeren Thomas Kuhn lancerede i sin bog Videnskabens Revolutioner begrebet Paradigme, der er de grundpræmisser eller antagelser som forskere tilslutter sig (det Newton’ske verdensbille eksempelvis). Et paradigmes skæbne afgøres ikke blot af om det modbevises, men også af, hvor stor tilslutning det får blandt forskere, der jo er mennesker der skal overbevises inden for deres egen begrænsning og måske endda interesser. At anskue forskning, som underlagt sociologiske og menneskelige processer bliver mere relevant jo længere ned af den videnskablige rangstige man befinder sig. Her vil man i mod sætning til “Fysikkens verden”, hvor det ene paradigme afløser det andet kunne operere med flere stridende paradigmer samtidigt, da man groft sagt ikke kan verificere, men blot sandsynliggøre, hvilket vil sige overbevise sine kollegaer. At de videnskabelige samfund således er underlagt “almindelige menneskelige love” så at sige. Mobningen af Alfred Wegener for at fremsætte sine teorier, der senere blev kendt som pladetektonik er lærerig for, hvor banalt også videnskabsfolk opfører sig. Wegener var ud over at være tysker også tilhænger af at lave geologiske undersøgelser uden for den civiliseret verden, hvilket blev anset for uciviliseret. Den videnskabelige konsensus fortælling lod sig simpelt hen ikke udfordre af en mand, der på en gang var amoralsk og farlig for den enkeltes position. Hvilken førende forsker ville efter et langt og hårdt karriereræs stille sig bagerst i køen af videnskabelig prestige?

Det suverænt hotteste videnskablige emne er det globale klima. Og her render en relativt ny og ekstremt kompliceret videnskabelig disciplin ind i en overeksponering af bibelske propotioner. Og det ser de alt for menneskelige forskere ikke ud til at have håndteret synderlig analytisk. East Anglia Universitets Climate Research Unit (CRU) er for nylig blevet hacket og deres email-korrespondance offentliggjort angiveligt, som svar på at CRU ikke har villet samarbejde med hvad de betragtede som skeptiske forskere og offentliggøre deres data angående temperaturmålinger. CRU beskrives af Pajamas Media som den globale opvarmnings Pentagon

They’re calling it “Climategate.” The scandal that the suffix –gate implies is the state of climate science over the past decade or so revealed by a thousand or so emails, documents, and computer code sets between various prominent scientists released following a leak from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the UK.

This may seem obscure, but the science involved is being used to justify the diversion of literally trillions of dollars of the world’s wealth in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by phasing out fossil fuels. The CRU is the Pentagon of global warming science, and these documents are its Pentagon Papers.

At tilbageholde data ud fra frygt for at blive modbevist, som de direkte skrev til Steve McIntyre er for at sige det mildt ikke særlig videnskabeligt. Videnskab er jo kun videnskab, hvis det kan falcifiseres. På Steve McIntyres midlertidige blog kan man læse et indlæg af Judy Curry om tribalisme.

Tribalism is defined here as a strong identity that separates one’s group from members of another group, characterized by strong in-group loyalty and regarding other groups differing from the tribe’s defining characteristics as inferior. In the context of scientific research, tribes differ from groups of colleagues that collaborate and otherwise associate with each other professionally. As a result of the politicization of climate science, climate tribes (consisting of a small number of climate researchers) were established in response to the politically motivated climate disinformation machine that was associated with e.g. ExxonMobil, CEI, Inhofe/Morano etc. The reaction of the climate tribes to the political assault has been to circle the wagons and point the guns outward in an attempt to discredit misinformation from politicized advocacy groups. The motivation of scientists in the pro AGW tribes appears to be less about politics and more about professional ego and scientific integrity as their research was under assault for nonscientific reasons (I’m sure there are individual exceptions, but this is my overall perception). I became adopted into a “tribe” during Autumn 2005 after publication of the Webster et al. hurricane and global warming paper. I and my colleagues were totally bewildered and overwhelmed by the assault we found ourselves under, and associating with a tribe where others were more experienced and savvy about how to deal with this was a relief and very helpful at the time.

After becoming more knowledgeable about the politics of climate change (both the external politics and the internal politics within the climate field), I became concerned about some of the tribes pointing their guns inward at other climate researchers who question their research or don’t pass various loyalty tests. I even started spending time at climateaudit, and my public congratulations to Steve McIntyre when climateaudit won the “best science blog award” was greeted with a rather unpleasant email from one of the tribal members. While the “hurricane wars” fizzled out in less than a year as the scientists recovered from the external assault and got back to business as usual in terms of arguing science with their colleagues, the “hockey wars” have continued apparently unabated. With the publication of the IPCC 4th Assessment report, the Nobel Peace Prize, and energy legislation near the top of the national legislative agenda, the “denialists” were becoming increasingly irrelevant (the Heartland Conference and NIPCC are not exactly household words). Hence it is difficult to understand the continued circling of the wagons by some climate researchers with guns pointed at skeptical researchers by apparently trying to withhold data and other information of relevance to published research, thwart the peer review process, and keep papers out of assessment reports. Scientists are of course human, and short-term emotional responses to attacks and adversity are to be expected, but I am particularly concerned by this apparent systematic and continuing behavior from scientists that hold editorial positions, serve on important boards and committees and participate in the major assessment reports. It is these issues revealed in the HADCRU emails that concern me the most, and it seems difficult to spin many of the emails related to FOIA, peer review, and the assessment process. I sincerely hope that these emails do not in actuality reflect what they appear to, and I encourage Gavin Schmidt et al. to continue explaining the individual emails and the broader issues of concern.

Vi er altså med, hvad man kalder climate-gate degenereret fra konkurerende paradigmer over i tribalisering, hvor man har chikaneret sine modstandere og tilbageholdt dataset osv. Men det er måske langt værre. Måske er der blevet manipuleret med de dataset, der danner bagrunden for computermodellerne (og måske endda også dem) og som hele teorien om den globale opvarmning (der har fået det truistiske navn klima-ændring) hviler på. Alan Caruba er ikke bange for ligefremme konklusioner

The revelations that scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) doctored the data supporting the global warming claims of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) means that EVERYTHING attributed to or based upon “global warming” is invalid.

It means the Kyoto Climate Protocols that nations agreed to on December 11, 1997 and which entered into force on February 16 2005, and all subsequent agreements based on “global warming” have no validity, scientifically or as the basis for public action by any nation, state, province, city or town.

It means that Al Gore’s pusillanimous “documentary” is a fraud along with just about every other statement uttered by any scientist, academician, or politician claiming that something, anything, should be done to avoid “global warming.”

Caruba taler om at nogle må i fængsel og man aner endda en konspiration en vaske ægte konspiration. Tim Ball tegner (Hat tip Watts Up With That) et rystyende billede af en gruppe forskere, der tilsyneladende har fundet et hul i videnskabens fundament af “peer review” nemlig at være enige om målrettet uhæderlighed

James Delingpole trækker det væsentligste frem fra interviewet med Tim Ball på sin blog

“It confirms suspicions that I’ve had working in my thirty years of climate science. I saw the hijacking of climate science particularly by computer modelers and then by a small group associated with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change….”

“What you’ve got here is confirmation of the small group of scientists who, by the way, Professor Wegman who was asked to arbitrate in the debate about the hockey stick, he identified 42 people who were publishing together and also peer-reviewing each other’s literature. So there’s a classic example of the kind of thing that bothered me. About twenty years ago, I started saying ‘Well why are they pushing the peer review?’..And now of course we realise it’s because they had control of their own process. That’s clearly exposed in these emails.”

“On a global scale it’s frightening because this group of people not only control the Hadley Centre, which controls the data on global temperature through the Hadley Climate Research Unit but they also control the IPCC and they’ve manipulated that. And of course the IPCC has become the basis in all governments for the Kyoto protocol, the Copenhagen accord and so on….”

Steve McIntyre, der er manden bag nedskydningen af Hockeystokken gennemgår løbende de mange afslørede mails og det er værd at følge med i. F.eks. denne

phil-jones

Obama kommer i øvrigt til København under klimatopmødet. Han er ikke inde i den heldigste stime i øjeblikket.

3 Kommentarer »

  1. Problemet- eller lidt af problematikken opstår- når dels falsificering er svært at lave for mange problematikker, dels når synspunkter der søger at sandsynliggøre eller hævde videnskabelig belæg for det ene eller andet synspunkt, eksempelvis for klimas vedkommende om tolkning af data og hypoteser på området - på uvedkommene vis for selve emnet upartisk at bedømme - ses være økonomisk støttet, for ensidigt at fremme bestemte tolkninger.

    Comment by Peter Buch — November 28, 2009 @ 12:19 pm
  2. Det var i den forbindelse en fornøjelse på tv at se DF ved hr. Thuresen Dahl forsvare bevilling af midler til synspunktet, at alle bør høres også kritikere af et bestemt synspunkt, og en organisation, der tillader sig at have andre perspektiver og vinkler end “normens” ligevel kunne støttes som så mange andre.

    Comment by Peter Buch — November 29, 2009 @ 9:05 am
  3. [...] Forleden henviste jeg til et indlæg på Steven McIntyres blog, hvor en Judi Curry beskrev CRU’s arbejde, som værende ramt af tribalism en tilstand, hvor man som forsker grupperer sig med sine meningsfæller og lader gruppens sag få forrang for åbensindet forskning. Det ærgrer mig derfor at Steen Nielsen forfalder til et modangreb, frem for at koncentrere sig om de perspektiver der ligger i at centrale forskere bevidst har manipuleret med deres forskning og at denne forskning danner rammen om store politiske beslutninger. [...]

    Pingback by Monokultur » Stadig Climate-gate — December 3, 2009 @ 6:54 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Kommentér indlægget...

Monokultur kører på WordPress