Paths To Knowledge (dot Science)

What is actually real in Objective Reality? How do you know? Now, prove it's real!

Climategate Alleged Scientists and The Alleged Science Journal Nature

Posted by pwl on December 3, 2009

The Alleged Science Journal Nature wrote an editorial in response to the recent Climategate.

The science journal Nature reveals a pernicious “elitism” that is pervasive in science, that of being in the “in” group. One such “in” group is having the “proper scientific qualifications”.

Einstein’s was a “patent clerk” when he did his work on Relativity. Had an “in” group doing what the Climategate alleged scientists (Jones, Mann, et. al. ) or Nature keep his work from being reviewed, published and accepted we’d be much worse off as a society.

Another example is from the Climategate alleged scientists who’s “in” group meant anyone who “agreed with their hypothesis”.

The science journal Nature seems to have adopted both “in” group requirements. In groups form “cliques” or “cults” when the rules of membership get too constrained. The Climategate emails are rife with examples of this “in” group behaviors.

Unfortunately for science to work ANYONE must be allowed to access the data from ANY publicly funded science regardless of their “in” or “out” of group status.

Here is an excellent response from Anthony Watts clarifying the issues.

1. For a scientific journal to use the label “denialists” is in my opinion unconscionable, and highlight’s Nature’s own bias.

2. The claims of harassment are ludicrous. The very foundation of science is based on the ability of other scientists to perform replication via data sharing. Finding excuses to not do this, and actively setting up hurdles to those requesting data for replication is not only not part of the scientific method, it is obstruction of the method.

3. For Nature to claim that:

Researchers are barred from publicly releasing meteorological data from many countries owing to contractual restrictions. Moreover, in countries such as Germany, France and the United Kingdom, the national meteorological services will provide data sets only when researchers specifically request them, and only after a significant delay.

Is pure rubbish. See point 5 below also – they provided the data to Peter Webster.

4. Nature assumes it was a hack in, but the evidence points to a leak, or even a carelessly left file on a public FTP site at CRU (which has happened before) Hackers are usually smash and grab affairs, with little time for understanding of what they are grabbing since they don’t know how long it willbe before they are discovered. They’ll sort it out later. The FOIA2009.zip appears to have been carefully assembled, pointing to someone with specific knowledge and broad access across systems. Further, hackers usually tout their exploits as “badges of honr”. We’ve heard nothing.

5. Previously, Nature reported on Steve McIntyre’s attempts to get access to this data in their report on August 12th, 2009 without so much as a disparaging word against Mr. McIntyre. They wrote then:

McIntyre is especially aggrieved that Peter Webster, a hurricane expert at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, was recently provided with data that had been refused to him.

Webster says his team was given the station data for a very specific request that will result in a joint publication with Jones. “Reasonable requests should be fulfilled because making data available advances science,” says Webster, “but it has to be an authentic request because otherwise you’d be swamped.”

Yet today, they drag out the slur denialist over the very same issue: data access and replication. If replication is not a valid request, then climate science is doomed.

Yes, I’d cancel my Nature subscription if I had one. – Anthony Watts

Yes, the simple answer is to post all notes, raw data, manNipulated data and how it was manNipulated, calculations, programs, etc… on public web servers.

The only problem with the simple answer of sharing their data for the Climategate alleged scientists (Jones, Mann, et. al.) is that it would violate their “in” group clique cult rules for membership. Clearly these are people who are dedicated to maximizing the alleged science to their own advantage. Another elitist “in group” value and power building strategy. Keep the information secret and the adage that information is power begins to take on a reality and in this case it brought them financial wealth, career advancement, power to influence political policy, fame, and now of course infamy. The Climategate alleged scientists strategy enabled a growing fraud to be carried out over the recent years since the publication of the Hockey Stick as part of the UN’s IPCC reports. Since money and distorted public policy is at stake it’s no long just a simple scientific fraud but a complex financial fraud with successful attempts to influence policy on a global scale.

For science to progress the cliques and “in” groups must be transparent and show their work.

The reason that I refer to the Climategate alleged scientists as “alleged scientists” is that since they’ve been found to be “harboring” data and “deleting” data and “obstructing the scientific method” they are not following nor honoring the scientific method. They are doing something other than science thus they are only alleged scientists until it can be proven that they adjust their attitude and bring it in line with an open public scientific method.

So it comes to pass that The science journal Nature is now the Alleged Science Journal Nature.


“ManNipulated” refers to the Climategate alleged scientists, Jones, Michael Mann, et. al. whose group invented the Hockey Stick Climate Graph by “maNipulating” the data. The extra “N” is to honor the good professor “ManN” for how he has “added value” to the data hiding the decline and chopping off declined tree data as it showed that tree rings were not a reliable correlated proxy for temperatures (other things influence tree rings).

One can also say that yes it’s “ManN-made global warming climate change” since it’s his faked hockey stick that made it.

Advertisements

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: