Comments on: Why Climategate doesn’t matter (I)

By: Phoenix Woman

Phoenix Woman — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 01:36:51 +0000

lkcape and other conservative trolls: 1) The sole "fudging" of data shown by the e-mails is actually a correction: Older, less accurate tree-ring data was replaced with more accurate temperature data. That's it. 2) How does it feel to be doing Exxon/Mobil's dirty work? Are you getting paid for it?

By: Nancy

Nancy — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 14:11:49 +0000

In emails and on listservs and in journals and at conferences and at presentations and seminars, scientists of all disciplines constantly debate data and analytic techniques. We worry about “validity” and “reliability” (are these data an accurate representation of what we say they mean?)about whether the data are adequate to assumptions underlying analytic procedures, about the analytic procedures, and about whether those procedures support the interpretations we make from them.

Yes, it is “manipulation” of data, but virtually all uses of data, legitimate and illegitimate, involve “manipulation.” It seems at minimum irresponsible to accuse those who participate in these routine discussions of ideological aims.

By: lkcape

lkcape — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 13:48:09 +0000

I’m not sure how “the timing of the released e-mails” has anything to do with either their accuracy or their implications.

Political move?

Quite likely.

But extraordinarily damaging to the orthodoxy whenever they are made public.

By: Dan Kennedy

Dan Kennedy — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 10:57:56 +0000

@LZNeilson: Folks I respect, including Paul Krugman and Joe Romm, have looked at Climategate in some depth and concluded that it’s much ado about very little. I have not taken the time to look into it in more than a cursory way, which is why I’m staying away from the e-mail themselves. The evidence for global warming is overwhelming and all around us. Glad to see that you get it, as I suspect most readers of this blog do.

By: LFNeilson

LFNeilson — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 10:26:36 +0000

1. The fact that some scientists may have used fake data does not mean that all scientists have.

2. The timing of the “discovery” of the emails makes me suspicious of what’s going on. Someone with a vested interest may be trying to discredit the conference.
There’s more to investigate here, (in that other prof’s class) and I’d be looking to trace the “discovery”. Were they planted?

3. GW is too big a threat to ignore, leaked emails or no.

Proceed, Dan.

By: Amused

Amused — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 06:20:06 +0000

As for Ikape and Lake Erie, it should be duly noted and spread upon the record that something came along to prevent it from dying for a thousand years.

That something was the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966 and its progeny.

Kindly thank the nearest liberal.

By: Amused

Amused — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 06:12:56 +0000

Personally, I believe that Industri-Plex is responsible for all global warming. Forget the wells, the methane was overwhelming.

By: O-FISH-L

O-FISH-L — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 05:55:31 +0000

Dan wrote: “As I recall a prosecutor once telling a jury, I don’t have to prove that Mr. Doe is the sort of person who’s capable of murdering his wife if I can prove that he, in fact, murdered his wife.”
—
O.J., anyone?

By: lkcape

lkcape — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 04:48:52 +0000

Sorry, Dan, it is you that seems not to get it.

Tainted data leads to tainted conclusions.

And since much of the “wisdom” that you base your views on derives from the very set of data that has now been exposed as being suspect, what then does it say about your attempts to abuse those who suggest that a closer, more appropriately scientific look is in order?

Is that beyond your comprehension?

Or does your adherence to the
orthodoxy of global warming cloud your view of proper scientific — or for that matter, social — research?

Now the question was, Dan, how would YOU approach a student in YOUR class who fabricated his thesis?

Answer it or not as you wish; the reader gets to decide whether or not you are ingenuous.

It is also interesting to note that Penn State University is looking into the possible misrepresentation of climate data and published conclusions.

By: Dan Kennedy

Dan Kennedy — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:42:30 +0000

Ikcape: You just don’t get it, do you? Someone else is grading these students’ papers. They are not in my class. I will let others do what they need to do with these particular scientists and instead focus on what interests me.