Roy Spencer om Climategate 0.2

[Jostemikk]

Roy Spencer kliner skikkelig til i Climategate 2.0: Bias in Scientific Research.

Jeg legger ut mine valgte utdrag, og halvfete uthevinger er gjort av meg.

The latest release (Climategate 2.0) not only reveals bias, but also some private doubts among the core scientist faithful about the scientific basis for the IPCC's policy goals. Yet, the IPCC's "cause" (Michael Mann's term) appears to trump all else. (Spencer tenker her på alle e-postene der Michael Mann nevner "The Cause")

So, when the science doesn't support The Cause, the faithful turn toward discussions of how to craft a story which minimizes doubt about the IPCC's findings. After considerable reflection, I'm going to avoid using the term 'conspiracy' to describe this activity, and discuss it in terms of scientific bias...

...In the case of global warming research, the alternative (non-consensus) hypothesis that some or most of the climate change we have observed is natural is the one that the IPCC must avoid at all cost. This is why the Hockey Stick was so prized: it was hailed as evidence that humans, not Nature, rule over climate change.

The Climategate 2.0 e-mails show how entrenched this bias has become among the handful of scientists who have been the most willing participants and supporters of The Cause. These scientists only rose to the top because they were willing to actively promote the IPCC's message with their particular fields of research.

Unfortunately, there is no way to "fix" the IPCC, and there never was. The reason is that its formation over 20 years ago was to support political and energy policy goals, not to search for scientific truth. I know this not only because one of the first IPCC directors told me so, but also because it is the way the IPCC leadership behaves. If you disagree with their interpretation of climate change, you are left out of the IPCC process. They ignore or fight against any evidence which does not support their policy-driven mission, even to the point of pressuring scientific journals not to publish papers which might hurt the IPCC's efforts.

Dette skulle være omtrent nøyaktig det jeg har skrevet utallige ganger. En liten kjerne av politiske aktivister, som lever i en slags søppel-symbiose med politikere som er drevet av alt annet enn et ønske om naturvern.

Les for all del resten av Spencers innlegg.

[ebye]

Flott Jostemikk, nå har "pressa" virkelig kommet i gang.  Spencer blir fin å linke til "in the un-nicked room".

[Amatør1]

Dette skulle være omtrent nøyaktig det jeg har skrevet utallige ganger. En liten kjerne av politiske aktivister, som lever i en slags søppel-symbiose med politikere som er drevet av alt annet enn et ønske om naturvern.

Ja, noen og hver her har sagt dette lenge, og det er flott at Spencer sier det så klart som han gjør.

Mht. 'Conspiracy' så er det definert slik:

con·spir·a·cy
1. the act of conspiring.
2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
4. Law . an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.


con·spire
1. to agree together, especially secretly, to do something wrong, evil, or illegal: They conspired to kill the king.
2. to act or work together toward the same result or goal. verb (used with object)
3. to plot (something wrong, evil, or illegal).


Det er ikke vanskelig å se hvorfor Spencer har brukt mye tid på å reflektere over begrepet 'Conspiracy' ifbm. The Team sine aktiviteter.