Stadig Climate-gate

Diverse — Drokles on December 3, 2009 at 6:54 am

Jørgen Steen Nielsen har i Information en noget mavesur artikel om Climate-gate, sagen om de lækkede e-mails fra East Anglia Climate Research Unit, der afslører en uhæderlig omgang med data og videnskab. Men han begræder at skeptikkerne er i offensiven

De opfatter sig som frihedskæmpere. Deres sprogbrug er krigerisk. Deres metoder skånselsløse. Målet helliger midlet.

Skriver Nielsen indledende om klimaskeptikkerne, hvilket er alle, der sætter spørgsmåltegn ved FNs konsesus. Klimaskeptikkerne er enten useriøse bloggere, halvstuderede forskere, ærkekonservative (hvilket på Information er et skældsord) og/eller konspirationsteoretikere. Sandt er det også at allehånde loonier trives i opposition til alt bestående og en sammensværgelse mellem alle regeringer, videnskaben og FN er langt mere spændende end, hvis det blot var en samling kritikkere uden anden indflydelse end klummeri.

Det brogede internationale netværk af aktive klimaskeptikere” har “indledt en heksejagt” og “…de nu vil slagte Gavin Schmidt.” får vi at vide og man begynder at forstå, hvor ens sympati burde ligge. De lækkede E-mails  betydning forklares med at også forskere benytter et frisprog og deres motiver til at handle overfor deciderede dårlige forskere, der under under dække af misforstået afbalancering af synspunkter spreder vrøvl

En længere korrespondance i 2003 belyser forskernes diskussioner og frustrationer over klimaskeptikeres ‘kidnapning’ af tidsskriftet Climate Research via besættelsen af en af redaktørposterne og den efterfølgende publikation af en artikel af to kendte skeptikere, der dementerede, at en global opvarmning finder sted. Artiklen vakte opsigt og blev bl.a. flittigt brugt af USA’s præsident Bush. Til gengæld undsagde 13 af de i artiklen citerede forskere dens konklusioner, og halvdelen af tidsskriftets redaktørpanel sagde op i protest mod kollegaens publikation af artiklen.

I e-mailkorrespondancen fra CRU-serveren lufter forskerne i 2003 deres frustration over denne afsporing af debatten og diskuterer, hvordan offentliggørelse af den slags underlødig videnskab kan bremses og redaktøren fjernes. 

Alt dette er ganske interessant, men skeptikernes onde brogethed er ikke Climate-gates kerne. Christopher Booker beskriver i Telegraph at CRU ikke er et broget sammenrend af ondsindede loonies, men kernen i det videnskablige etablissement.

Professor Philip Jones, the CRU’s director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC’s key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.

Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.

Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.

Washington Times pointerer i deres leder

Professor Phil Jones, head of the CRU and contributing author to the United Nation’s IPCC report chapter titled “Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes,” says he “accidentally” deleted some raw temperature data used to construct the aggregate temperature data CRU distributed. If you believe that, you’re probably watching too many Al Gore videos.

Mr. Jones is the same professor who warned that global-warming skeptics “have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.”

Og betydningen er jo følgelig

Academics around the world who have spent years working on papers using this data must be in full panic mode. By the admission of the global-warming theocracy’s own self-appointed experts, the data they have been using is simply “garbage.”

Skeptikernes uhæderlige motiver er udover at være irrelevante for denne videnskabelige skandale endda heller ikke unikke. I Wall Street Journal opfordrer Bret Stephens til at “følge pengene”

Consider the case of Phil Jones, the director of the CRU and the man at the heart of climategate. According to one of the documents hacked from his center, between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient) of some $19 million worth of research grants, a sixfold increase over what he’d been awarded in the 1990s.

Why did the money pour in so quickly? Because the climate alarm kept ringing so loudly: The louder the alarm, the greater the sums. And who better to ring it than people like Mr. Jones, one of its likeliest beneficiaries?

Thus, the European Commission’s most recent appropriation for climate research comes to nearly $3 billion, and that’s not counting funds from the EU’s member governments. In the U.S., the House intends to spend $1.3 billion on NASA’s climate efforts, $400 million on NOAA’s, and another $300 million for the National Science Foundation. The states also have a piece of the action, with California—apparently not feeling bankrupt enough—devoting $600 million to their own climate initiative. In Australia, alarmists have their own Department of Climate Change at their funding disposal.

And all this is only a fraction of the $94 billion that HSBC Bank estimates has been spent globally this year on what it calls “green stimulus”—largely ethanol and other alternative energy schemes—of the kind from which Al Gore and his partners at Kleiner Perkins hope to profit handsomely.

[link i teksten tilføjet af Drokles]

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.

2 Kommentarer »

  1. De email demonstrerer moralsk korruption i så stort et omfang, at der ikke længere er tvivl om hvorvidt d’herrer bedrev tendentiøs forskning. Det er en katastrofe at basere klimakonferencen på det grundlag. Sagen viser, at FN, EU og tilsvarende institutioner er uhyre farlige, fordi så meget magt koncentreres på så få hænder. Perspektiverne i skandalen rækker meget længere…

    Comment by Universalgeni — December 3, 2009 @ 2:04 pm
  2. Ja til listen kan tilføjes seriøse forskere….for lige for tiden handler det ikke om videnskab, men om politik.

    Der er skrevet meget godt om dette emne hos punditokraterne.

    Comment by EAM — December 3, 2009 @ 4:00 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Kommentér indlægget...

Monokultur kører på WordPress