Frikendt, men…

Diverse — Drokles on July 24, 2010 at 6:30 pm

I november sidste år blev en stor del af en mailkorrespondence fra East Anglia universitetets klimaenhed lækket på internettet og skabte det, som klimaskeptikere har kaldt Climategate. Korrespondencen afslørede tilsyneladende og ganske interessant for klimadiskussionen at centrale forskere indenfor den del af klimaforskningen, der udarbejdede data over klimaets udvikling og havde stor indflydelse på FNs klimapanels konklusioner, dels var mere splittede i forhold til klimaets udvikling og egentlige dynamik end man lod offentligheden forstå (hvilket underminerer påstanden om konsensus), dels at de manipulerede med den forskning de præsenterede for omverdenen og dels at de aktivt søgte at påvirke den peer review process, der afgør, hvilke videnskabelige artikler, der trykkes i de anerkendte tidsskrifter til fordel for deres egne teorier.

Men mere prækært og interessant for loven fremgik det tilsyneladende også at forskerne ikke blot tilbageholdt data fra offentligheden (dem der betaler gildet via deres sure skatter), der kunne bruges til at kontrolere deres resultater, men endda slettede en mængde emails, som måske kunne have inkrimineret dem. Som en konsekvens af denne mistanke afsatte det engelske meterologiske institut, MIT, straks 3 års arbejde til nidkært at gennemgå de gennem mange år opbyggede data for eventuelle fejl og lederen af klimaenheden Phil Jones blev ikke blot suspenderet, men både sat foran en parlamentshøring og en undersøgelse af sit eget universitet under ledelse af Muir Russel. Nu skulle der være rene linier. Men undersøgelserne handlede ikke om selve videnskaben, som her forklaret i Economist

An earlier report on climategate from the House of Commons assumed that a subsequent probe by a panel under Lord Oxburgh, a former academic and chairman of Shell, would deal with the science. The Oxburgh report, though, sought to show only that the science was not fraudulent or systematically flawed, not that it was actually reliable. And nor did Sir Muir, with this third report, think judging the science was his job.

Parlamentshøringen frikendte med en overraskende kort rapport i store træk Jones og hans enhed for graverende fejl og kriminelle hensigter sådan som man stillede anklagerne op. Og Muir Russels undersøgelse også umiddelbart også udlagt, som en frikendelse i de fleste nyhedsmedier. Men klimadebatten tro så diskuteres det også om frikendelsen nu helt så fri, hvad den egentlig siger og hvor godt dens arbejde egentlig er. Patrick Michaels slår f.eks. tvivl om rapportens uafhængighed i Wall Street Journal

Mr. Russell took pains to present his committee, which consisted of four other academics, as independent. He told the Times of London that “Given the nature of the allegations it is right that someone who has no links to either the university or the climate science community looks at the evidence and makes recommendations based on what they find.”

No links? One of the panel’s four members, Prof. Geoffrey Boulton, was on the faculty of East Anglia’s School of Environmental Sciences for 18 years. At the beginning of his tenure, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU)—the source of the Climategate emails—was established in Mr. Boulton’s school at East Anglia. Last December, Mr. Boulton signed a petition declaring that the scientists who established the global climate records at East Anglia “adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity.”

Muir Russels konklusion summeres her af Fred Pearce i Guardian

Generally honest but frequently secretive; rigorous in their dealings with fellow scientists but often “unhelpful and defensive”, and sometimes downright “misleading”, when explaining themselves to the wider world. That was the verdict of Sir Muir Russell and his fellow committee members in their inquiry into the role of scientists at the University of East Anglia in the “climategate” affair.

Pearce prøver at være afbalanceret i sin bedømmelse af undersøgelsens konklusioner og afviser at der er tale hvidvask, hvad mange skeptikere ellers ikke var sene om konkludere. Pearce mener nemlig at rapporten også indeholder hård kritik af Jones og hans forskerenheds metoder. Pearce udtrykker alligevel en del kritik overfor selve Muir Russel rapporten og især falder det ham for brystet at undersøgelsen ikke har beskæftiget sig med at forskerne tilsyneladende slettede en mængde e-mails, da de ikke længere kunne forhale myndighedernes krav om aktindsigt (FoI, Freedom of Information)

Most seriously, it finds “evidence that emails might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them [under Freedom of information law]“. Yet, extraordinarily, it emerged during questioning that Russell and his team never asked Jones or his colleagues whether they had actually done this.

Dette er også faldet Patrick Michael for brystet, som han med henvisning til netop Pearce skriver i Wall Street Journal

It’s impossible to find anything wrong if you really aren’t looking. In a famous email of May 29, 2008, Phil Jones, director of East Anglia’s CRU, wrote to Mr. Mann, under the subject line “IPCC & FOI,” “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report]? Keith will do likewise . . . can you also email Gene [Wahl, an employee of the U.S. Department of Commerce] to do the same . . . We will be getting Caspar [Amman, of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research] to do likewise.”

Mr. Jones emailed later that he had “deleted loads of emails” so that anyone who might bring a Freedom of Information Act request would get very little.

Men skeptikere har, som sagt, kaldt det en hvidvask og ikke blot hæftet sig ved den nonchalante holdning til bevismateriale, men også personkredsen. Patrick J Michaels giver indirekte en fornemmelse for det stærke opgør mellem debattens aktører når han stiller skarpt på

Mr. Russell took pains to present his committee, which consisted of four other academics, as independent. He told the Times of London that “Given the nature of the allegations it is right that someone who has no links to either the university or the climate science community looks at the evidence and makes recommendations based on what they find.”

No links? One of the panel’s four members, Prof. Geoffrey Boulton, was on the faculty of East Anglia’s School of Environmental Sciences for 18 years. At the beginning of his tenure, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU)—the source of the Climategate emails—was established in Mr. Boulton’s school at East Anglia. Last December, Mr. Boulton signed a petition declaring that the scientists who established the global climate records at East Anglia “adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity.”

Og Clive Crook er endnu mere ude med krabasken i The Atlantic (min fremhævning)

I had hoped, not very confidently, that the various Climategate inquiries would be severe. This would have been a first step towards restoring confidence in the scientific consensus. But no, the reports make things worse. At best they are mealy-mouthed apologies; at worst they are patently incompetent and even wilfully wrong. The climate-science establishment, of which these inquiries have chosen to make themselves a part, seems entirely incapable of understanding, let alone repairing, the harm it has done to its own cause.

Tim Ball er ikke ked af at overgå den vurdering i Canada Free Press

There were two British investigations into the behavior of scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) exposed in leaked emails. Both reports provide no answers, no explanations and are only telling for what they did not ask or do and how they were manipulated. The blatant level of cover up is frightening. These are acts by people who believe they are unaccountable because they have carried out the greatest scam in history with impunity. The degree of cover up in both cases is an arrogant in-your-face statement that we are the power and are not answerable to anyone. Their cover up almost belittles the ones they are investigating.

Imens har sagen om opfinderen af den berømte og berygtede ishockeystok graf, grafen, der mere end nogen anden graf blev den folkelige rygende pistol på menneskeskabt global opvarmning ved sin nøje korrealation mellem stigning i CO2 udledning og temperatur, Michael Mann taget en bizar drejning. Michael Mann er nemlig under anklage fra Virginias statsanklager ofr med fortsæt at have spildt skatteborgernes penge ved at manipulere med sin forskning med det formål at rejse ekstra midler.

1 Kommentar »

  1. [...] sommer refererede jeg til nogle reaktioner på nogle undersøgelser af den klimaforskning og forvaltning af data, der var [...]

    Pingback by Monokultur » Frikendt, men… II — January 30, 2011 @ 4:36 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Kommentér indlægget...

buy cheap generic viagra online
Monokultur kører på WordPress