The CRB (Climate Research Brouhaha) update

The ‘discussion’ itself is as important as the findings. There is a tone and approach to reason and integrity that can be seen that echoes what can be seen in many politically hot arguments such as the one about global warming. The Washington Times editorializes about Hiding the evidence of global cooling.

We don’t condone e-mail theft by hackers, though these e-mails were covered by Britain’s Freedom of Information Act and should have been released. The content of these e-mails raises extremely serious questions that could end the academic careers of many prominent professors. Academics who have purposely hidden data, destroyed information and doctored their results have committed scientific fraud.

Dr. Tim Ball and Judi McLeod note that Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren involved in unwinding “Climategate” scandal at Canada Free Press to show how collusion and conspiracy are two different things. That is not overt in the column but is important because the defense attempts to portray the findings as alleging conspiracy which is, rightly, perceived as needing a great deal of skepticism. Collusion in a like minded and shared values community is an entirely different animal and is more analogous to the tribal problem in Afghanistan. Again, it is the tactics that are worthy of note as a clue to the underlying integrity of position.

Obama Science Czar John Holdren is directly involved in CRU’s unfolding Climategate scandal. In fact, according to files released by a CEU hacker or whistleblower, Holden is involved in what Canada Free Press (CFP) columnist Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball terms “a truculent and nasty manner that provides a brief demonstration of his lack of understanding, commitment on faith and willingness to ridicule and bully people”. … Holdren’s emails show how sincere scientists would be made into raw “entertainment”.

The reason why this release of FOIA material is ‘red meat’ is seen in the way the argument is conducted. The defense ridicules those who don’t agree with it, minimizes the importance of data that does not support its view, and attempts to discredit data that it don’t like with allegations about theft or ‘ill gotten gains’. The other camp, as illustrated in the two articles cited above, tends to use citation and reference as a part of a description of actual events and lets the data fall where they may. Without data, the rhetoric favors those who are willing to argue based on everything except the data while those who prefer a more sound approach are left scrambling for means to refute empty accusations about their character or capabilities. Now the reality can be placed on the table for inspection and that is what is being done.

Comments are closed.