When I was in grad school, I was taught very thoroughly in many classes that scientific theories are established in the following manner: You posit a theory and then attempt to thwart your own hypothesis. You test the theory to try to destroy it. You carry out experiments and gather data to look for even the slightest deviation from your theory. If your hypothesis holds up to serious attacks on its weakest points, then you have a theory that can be published, and tested, and verified by other scientists. If you successfully destroy your own theory, then you throw it out.
Recently, a hacker (or a whistle blower as claimed by some) accessed the data and emails of scientists at East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU). While such data was apparently illegally obtained, it's hard to discount the ugly truth that has been revealed. These global warming scientists/activists have been routinely violating scientific methods, including the following violations:
1. Data manipulation (as CRU chief scientist Phil Jones stated he was doing an e-mail message)
2. Denying data to other investigators (as one CRU scientist did when compiling weather-station data. When he ran into conflicting data, he stated, "I can make it up. So I did.").
3. Destruction of data (as the members of the CRU did when a Freedom of Information request threatened to expose them)
Other skulduggery was going on to influence the argument, including acting as website screeners to disallow comments and opinions that don't support AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming), as well as successfully getting a skeptical editor for Geophysical Research Letters fired.
Should we be formulating government policy based on clearly fraudulent science? I say cap and trade is bad law based on a fraud.
4 comments:
No, we shouldn't....but we surely didn't base all our government policy based on just those fraudulent scientist die we?
What is the objective of these scientist? What are they trying to gain by this?
Is this the leading scientific think tank on this issue?
I wonder, like Teresa, if this bunch is the only bunch that provides data authentic or fraudulent to the government. Who financially supports this EA-CRU? Is it attached to a University research department, a military project, a government department, privately funded; who is paying these guys?
Given the worldwide interest in this idea, it hardly seems plausible that this group is the definitive authority on the subject.
It is attached to the University and was considered to be the main repository of climate data, which they discarded when a Freedom of Information request was made. Whether this is the death knell to global warming theory remains to be seen, but it sure enough gives them a black eye.
It does indeed give them a black eye, and especially ammunition for all those wary to hostile of the notion of global warming.
Post a Comment