Sometimes, someone makes a comment that is perfect

Here’s one comment to an excellant article by Frank on

No chicken little climate change "science" please

PajamasMedia that was so perfect I lifted it and posted it here.  I hereby declare it (and Frank’s article, too) required reading for all two of my loyal readers (thanks Ma! Thanks son! Son? Ok, ONE loyal reader…) .  The following is all “eon’s” words, not mine, even though not in quotations:

….Science is not a religion, and its practitioners are not priests. When they act like same, they should be fired. Period. Dot. That sort of behavior puts them in the same category as the ufologists, “contactees”, and other devotees of the belief that The Space Brothers Are Coming To Save Us All- Or At Least The Faithful Who Are Superior.

An argument from authority has no place in science, either. If someone really is an authority, they should be able to explain their findings in plain English and more importantly support their work with data. When someone says, “You are too stupid to understand the data”, my response is “And you’re not? Let’s compare IQs, shall we? If yours is no higher than mine, explain your conclusions.”

If they refuse to release the data, or claim that it was somehow lost or destroyed, they are behaving unprofessionally. I guarantee you the lab I worked at still has reports and raw data printouts with my initials on same, from several decades ago. They’re probably on a hard-drive now, but they’re there. That’s how you do real science; I’m not sure the AGW crowd understands this.

As for their unwillingness to admit error, a real scientist is always ready to say those three little words, “I was wrong”. One of our old “Murphy’s Laws” goes “Experiments should be repeatable- they should all fail the same way”. Any scientist worthy of the name knows the meaning of the word “Oops”, trust me. (To say nothing of the word, “DUCK!”)

If the AGW crowd claim that they (1) are absolutely right, (2) have no anomalous results in their data, (3) cannot produce their raw data, and (4) have the right to refuse to share their data with anyone who disagrees with them even slightly- then they’re selling snake oil, not doing science. And more importantly, they know it and are hoping nobody else catches on.

I don’t mind when “believers” in Grays or Nords do this, as most people ignore their demands for “immediate action” on (Fill In The Blank) on the quite sensible grounds that they are both unable to justify the actions they demand and are acting nutty into the bargain. But when people with actual qualifications act in this way while demanding that absolute power be granted to (opportunistic) politicians as a result, I do mind it- very much indeed.

I expect a bit more from them in terms of rationality- not to mention respect for the human race in general.

clear ether

eon

Dec 4, 2009 – 5:29 am

As in the furor over Dan Rather’s fabricated documents about George W. Bush’s National Guard service back in 2004, bloggers have been swarming over the material and highlighting the bad faith, bad science, and possibly even criminal behavior (deleting material requested under Britain’s Freedom of Information Act and perhaps tax evasion) of a small group of highly influential climate scientists. As with Rathergate, diehard climate campaigners are repairing to the “fake but accurate” defense–what these scientists did may be unethical or deeply biased, they say, but the science is settled, don’t you know, so move along, nothing to see here. There are a few notable exceptions, such as Guardian columnist George Monbiot, who in the past has trafficked in the most extreme climate mongering: “It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow,” Monbiot wrote in a November 23 column. “The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. .  .  . I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them. .  .  . I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely.” Monbiot has joined a number of prominent climate scientists in demanding that the CRU figures resign their posts and be excluded from future climate science work. The head of the CRU, Phil Jones, announced last week that he will temporarily step down pending an investigation.

END OF COMMENT.

Update: This paragraph from another excellant article from the WeeklyStandard dovetails with the above comment:

“As in the furor over Dan Rather’s fabricated documents about George W. Bush’s National Guard service back in 2004, bloggers have been swarming over the material and highlighting the bad faith, bad science, and possibly even criminal behavior (deleting material requested under Britain’s Freedom of Information Act and perhaps tax evasion) of a small group of highly influential climate scientists. As with Rathergate, diehard climate campaigners are repairing to the “fake but accurate” defense–what these scientists did may be unethical or deeply biased, they say, but the science is settled, don’t you know, so move along, nothing to see here. There are a few notable exceptions, such as Guardian columnist George Monbiot, who in the past has trafficked in the most extreme climate mongering: “It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow,” Monbiot wrote in a November 23 column. “The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. .  .  . I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them. .  .  . I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely.” Monbiot has joined a number of prominent climate scientists in demanding that the CRU figures resign their posts and be excluded from future climate science work. The head of the CRU, Phil Jones, announced last week that he will temporarily step down pending an investigation.”  AMEN brutha!

One response to “Sometimes, someone makes a comment that is perfect

  1. There is merit to Eon’s comment, and the Pajama’s Media article, but the unfortunate fact is that is that it does take some effort, sometimes considerable, to understand scientific theory. And the average person will not make that effort. Instead, too many make religion out science.

    We fantasize scientists with more honor and expertise than they have. We fantasize that the world we see on TV actually exists. When we know better than to trust politicians, we fantasize the government they run can be trusted. We accept with religious faith the most damn stupid things, and that, to a large extent, is how we got into this muddle.
    http://citizentom.com/2009/04/20/fantasy-ideology-and-the-next-stage-of-environmentalism/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s