…a review of the relevant scientific literature reveals substantial flaws in the previous analyses of McKitrick and Michaels. That, rather than any close-mindedness or “censorship”, is the real reason why McKitrick’s analyses have become increasingly marginalized in the scientific literature…

http://deepclimate.org/2010/04/05/mcclimategate-continued-mckitrick-completely-wrong-on-ipcc/

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/mckitrick_at_it_again.php

http://sites.google.com/site/rossmckitrick/gatekeeping.pdf?attredirects=0

Click the link for the full story on pdf. astonishing stuff whichever side of the fence you sit.

http://www.desmogblog.com/phil-jones-exonerated-british-house-commons

The investigation has concluded that Jones did nothing fraudulent, as Andy has suggested (and generalized about every climate scientist).

Report available here:

http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_technology/s_t_cru_inquiry.cfm

there also is the issue about scientific misconduct. Let me answer this separately, so that this comment gets a separate linkable identifier on this page.

First, why do I use the term “scientific misconduct” and not “fraud”? Just because it is the broad term that covers all sorts of things that need to be investigated. How deep the problem runs with this particular case, we cannot yet say, because we do not yet know all the details.

Ad:

===
I have no respect for people who continue to show respect for so-called scientists caught in fraud in the very subject being discussed. Even if the revealed part of their fraud is only a part of the evidence. Do you really think that the part they got caught in was the only part? Why continue to trust them? Why such an impotent response?

Would you have the same respect for scientists who dispute AGW (that includes many who don\u2019t \u2018deny it\u2019, in spite of the simplistic yes or no being presented to the sheep) if they were caught falsifying figures and using underhanded tactics to silence their detractors?
===

As a general rule of conduct, I never would give premature judgment on a case while an on-going investigation is visibly making progress. Regardless of who has been accused of what. So, yes, I would of course “have the same respect for scientists who dispute AGW if they were caught falsifying figures”.

Ad “using underhanded tactics to silence their detractors”. There is an important sociological issue here one has to be aware of. This is by no means a “justification” for what some people seem to have done concerning AGW, but should help to better understand the context.

In science, what we have seen for ages is that people with just enough scientific training to comprehend some intriguing questions, but not enough to comprehend the deeper structure of the problem, yet a desire to become famous, swamp the experts with their manuscripts. Popular topics from the past (and present) include: squaring the circle, proving Fermat’s last Theorem, disproving Einstein’s theory of relativity, constructing a Perpetuum Mobile, and a number of others. I would like you to do the following experiment: contact your nearest University that has a faculty of physics and ask the staff there whether you can have a look at the collection of unsolicited manuscript submissions by laymen from the public. Best just ask them for the proposals for Perpetual Motion Machines they received over the last decade.

Basically, many academics who work in subjects that in some way or another appear attractive or interesting to members of the public receive so many “crackpot” articles that they have to develop strategies to deal with these. After all, many of the “perpetual motion crackpots” have a lot of time at their hands – a noticeable fraction of submissions actually seems to come from retired engineers. So, given that it is easier to spin weird ideas than to explain in detail what is wrong about them, how many full-time crackpots would it take to keep ten full-time professors of physics completely busy with the Whac-a-Mole game of resolving the errors in their thinking? I’d estimate that two to three full time crackpots would suffice to keep ten full time professors from doing any research. Now, what would you expect to be larger: the number of physics professors or the number of crackpots?

Seeing this context, it is pretty clear that academic disciplines with high crackpot activity, such as mathematics and physics, inevitably by now must have evolved some strategies to deal with such problems. One may argue whether the structures which have evolved are useful, effective, reasonable, desirable, problematic, or outright dangerous, and why – but this is, for now, a side issue. Take, for example, the physics preprint archive arxiv.org: It got so bombarded by submissions from all sorts of people with their very own ideas about a “theory of everything” that they implemented very stringent submission rules. Of course, some of those very “productive” people barred from submitting their work to arxiv.org were very unhappy about this and set up their own preprint archive, vixra.org. (arxiv backwards). Let us take a look at some specific article there: http://vixra.org/abs/1003.0026 – “Begin the Adventure How to Break the Light Barrier by A.d. 2079″. 147 pages of useless nonsense. How should professional physicists deal with this?

Personally, I always had the impression that mathematicians had the far better methods to deal with submissions from laypeople, and I think they pay more attention to this issue in particular because laypeople actually sometimes have contributed very good ideas – still, this is rare, but a very small fraction of these submissions have been very very valuable. When there was a prize for proving Fermat’s Last Theorem, the institution that took submissions soon started to use a form letter that basically just said: “Many thanks for your submission, the first mistake is on page [ ]“.

So, considering in particular the CRU Emails, I take it you are specifically referring to Phil Jones and some of his correspondents when you speak of “government scientists”. There is strong evidence that he did handle a FOIA request issue in a highly inappropriate way, and I can understand very well that a number of people would like to see him sacked for that. If I had the answers to a list of further questions I would like to ask about this case, it is quite likely that I would also demand that he – and a few other professionals – gets replaced. Considering the “using underhanded tactics to silence their detractors” issue – which I take refers to attempts to prevent the publication of scientific articles – the situation is much less clear. I certainly think that, in order to make up one’s mind about this issue, it would be very helpful to actually take a look at the article in question. I have not seen it – does anyone by chance have a copy?

I have no problems with a statement such as “by its very nature, science can only tell us how certain we are about something” – but I call statements such as “AGW is not proven” misleading, *especially* if put forward in a context such as this:

===
If it is a fact, it is provable. Nobody is arguing about the fact that gravity pulls you down. What is being presented as proof is just evidence.
===

Here, you *are* creating the impression that “scientific proof” would be the normal situation, with AGW being quite different. So, yes, you are misleading people with your statements.

“So, you claim that the World Bank dreams of a world-wide communist revolution? ”

No, I mentioned more than the world bank, but all you need to do is look at their own stated objectives, and then at which of those objectives they are having success at… you may get an idea. It’s all there, publicly available, but you have to dig a bit behind the gloss that keeps the sheep happy. It’s no harder than delving through countless scientific papers in search of the nuggets of truth they often contain.
so, for the whole list which you cut short and was only an example of the many-headed hydra,
Depending on what you mean by communist, yes. Banks funded Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, all of them. All of them have the same system (ask the victims before you start another nitty-gritty)

Frequently Banks have funded both sides in wars. Those wars could not have happened without that funding, so you can’t just dismiss it as a minor thing. There are no countries to these people, except as pawns in their power game.

I’m not being a conspiracy theorist here, it’s human nature. I’m not bleating about how ‘evil’ so-and-so is, either. Who knows, under their circumstances I would probably do exactly the same thing. How often have you sat on a crowded train full of farting, noisy, objectionable, sneezing, squabbling creatures of light with their stinking burgers and spoilt brats eating snacks and pop until they puke, and thought, ‘I do so love humanity’? There’s a reason for first class, and there’s the same reason for private jets, when first class gets too much. Know your enemy. Know yourself. That idea is often misinterpreted to mean you are your own enemy, which nicely neuters the believer in endless umbilicology, but all it really means is you could just as easily be the ‘evil’ one. And to your enemy, you are.

And just on the subject of enemies (just in case) There was a tribe I heard about who had no word for enemy. The nearest thing they had was ‘friend we haven’t met yet’. They probably thought they had no enemies, but it turns out they were wrong. There are none left now.

“Scientific misconduct does happen.”

It’s not just to be dismissed as ’scientific misconduct’. It’s conscious and deliberate scientific fraud at the highest level in the lobby that is owned by the government, and whose research is used to prop up the IPCC. I have no respect for people who continue to show respect for so-called scientists caught in fraud in the very subject being discussed. Even if the revealed part of their fraud is only a part of the evidence. Do you really think that the part they got caught in was the only part? Why continue to trust them? Why such an impotent response?

Would you have the same respect for scientists who dispute AGW (that includes many who don’t ‘deny it’, in spite of the simplistic yes or no being presented to the sheep) if they were caught falsifying figures and using underhanded tactics to silence their detractors? At least the questioners are only being employed by people you don’t like. Do you really expect the pro-lobby to pay them?

Think about it. Why are those people still in their jobs? Why is the IPCC still using their ’science’. Why haven’t they all been thrown out? It’s not like there’s a shortage of PHDs is it? Isn’t truth important any more? If a bank teller got caught stealing from a shop, he’d be sacked. No need to rob the bank, stealing from a shop is enough to call his entire character into question, because he might well be stealing form the bank as well. They don’t wait till they catch him. Likewise, everything else these fraudulent scientists do is questionable.

When dodgy articles are published by these frauds in ‘Respected Academic Journals’, those journals themselves should lose the respect they had. We have a serious situation here, something that lovers of science should be very concerned about, because it threatens science itself. Don’t just dismiss it like it’s just a few ‘rogue’ scientists. It’s the main source of government and NGO propaganda. It’s top people. Why hide from this? These are rhetorical questions by the way.

Believe it or not (!) I am well aware that the problem is far older than the AGW discussion. It’s just rare that these scumbags are caught so unequivocally, and I find it thoroughly depressing that people would dismiss it so easily because the crooks happen to be on your side. Enjoy the investigation, you’ll have a long wait, but they may throw you a sacrificial goat or two soon, if you bleat loud enough. But bleating a bit won’t threaten their hegemony, so more will be required than an investigation. The authenticity of the emails is not in dispute.

And the argument that they are out of context is ludicrous, as the entire bunch of thousands of emails and other docs was made available to the public. By that measure the U.S constitution could be called ‘out of context’.

“Why do you insist on “AGW is not proven” if, by the same token, you then perhaps also should tell the world that “Einstein’s theory of relativity is not proven”?”

Because it is not proven. So when someone claims that it is, I politely point out that it isn’t. When that attracts condescending and even angry replies, I feel the need to reply again, when I know really I should just leave it alone. I just re-read everything, and
there’s no more to be said from me, I concede the argument. It just isn’t worth any more effort.

two points.

(a) So, you claim that the World Bank dreams of a world-wide communist revolution? Considering that the World Bank is so intimately linked to the Pentagon, and both share the “communism is evil” belief, I wonder how you arrived at *that* conclusion.

(b) You write:

“All I am saying is that
1. AGW is not proven,
2. Government scientists have been caught red-handed using fraudulent techniques both to advance their agenda and to squash any peers who disagree with them.”

Well, if this is all you are saying, then, why talk about issues such as, say, global temperatures over the last 10 years at all? Either a point is relevant and you would like to see it discussed, or not – then please don’t mention it in the first place!

Concerning (1): Shouldn’t it be generally understood in this discussion that science is science? Both the statement “AGW is not proven” as well as the statement “scientists are not sure whether AGW is true” are actually not at all about AGW (for AGW is freely substitutable by pretty much anything you like; in principle, you could just as well put “The AIDS hypothetis” or “biogenesis of fossil fuels” or whatever you like). Such statements are all about stoking confusion in the general public about the general nature of scientific claims. Why do you insist on “AGW is not proven” if, by the same token, you then perhaps also should tell the world that “Einstein’s theory of relativity is not proven”?

Concerning (2): Scientific misconduct does happen. And it has to be dealt with. The process is not perfect – after all, could you name any social phenomenon or activity you would regard as “perfect”? The reason why we have concepts such as academic integrity is because we actually need them – even if we all would love to never have to apply them, because everybody would automatically always adhere to these principles. So, valid (and important!) questions here are: has that particular scientist X been engaged in academic fraud on subject Y? Believe it or not – the problem is far older than the AGW discussion. I am fairly sure that, among all the climatologists, there will be some (few) black sheep that behave in an inacceptable way. There indeed are some investigations going on right now. Yes, it will be interesting to see what these investigations produce.

The one question that really matters here is: do you accuse all climatologists of dishonesty who ring the alarm bell concerning AGW? I would much like to hear your answer.

“So, it seems that you’re content to rely on the simple fact that a contradicting opinion EXISTS as your proof that nothing is “proven”. And since nothing is proven, AGW must not be true. I hope you see the fallacy in this approach.”

I am absolutely not saying AGW must not be true. All I am saying is that we do not know. If I say that there has not been warming for the last 10 years, that doesn’t seem to be any use, because all I get back is nitty gritty counter arguments (or the point is ignored) and the idea is lost that I was originally putting across. I could equally say that you are pointing to conflicting opinions to show that it is true, but that would only lead to an endless argument about which ’scientist’ trumps the other. So,

All I am saying is that
1. AGW is not proven,
2. Government scientists have been caught red-handed using fraudulent techniques both to advance their agenda and to squash any peers who disagree with them.

The rest is off into side arguments about whether or not it is true, which as I said, I don’t know, and I know enough about climate to know that nobody else does either. It seems like an admission of ignorance is an invitation to evangelists of both sides. Why can’t humans just accept that we are pretty ignorant about most things in the world? Probably because there is always someone more stupid than me to compare myself favorably to!

The point is that we’re arguing over something that was relevant years ago, but not now that our position has been hi-jacked by globalists (or communists or whatever people want to call them).

What I experience, from all three stances–first pro, then anti (as a mindgame) and now neither–is that the only result of any of them is endless argument. That tells me that this particular battlefield is no longer advantageous, my efforts will either be squandered, or used to the advantage of my enemies. There are plenty of other things to cite in favor of permaculture, it’s no loss at all. We aren’t powerful enough to piggy-back on the globalists’ propaganda machine, we will get dumped in the mud inevitably.

Perhaps sometimes, people could consider putting the climate aspect of our work into other terms which have not yet been hi-jacked by the Globalists. For example in our Morocco project, the replanting of forest and repair of the watershed will increase local rainfall, and keep it there longer. The valley will become more fertile, and as we expand, the desert, which is downwind and downstream, will start to retreat. Local… not global. I didn’t even have to mention climate. We got into this situation because people were thinking locally, and humans are not designed to think globally. All sorts of mad things happen when they do, from despotic dictators right through to insane Gurus who make their followers have sex with them and chant in foreign languages. Local ’solutions’ can be understood by everyone.

It’s a shame we can’t talk about this without the AGW baggage of the last 20 years or so. I thought of writing an article, or posting in the discussions, but I can’t find a way to put it yet that won’t spark off those old tired and frankly (to me) boring and unedifying ‘details’.

I could say a lot more but I already said it above in the comments. when your head starts to hurt, it’s time to stop banging it.

My own arguments are lost in the pro and anti babble, which is a shame, but I am not a paid full-time government scientist, nor a paid coal industry shill, nor a paid journalist, so I don’t have the time, resources or energy to pursue it as a job. (see, things could always be worse!). I apologize for getting involved in this argument without the ability to pursue my points to people’s satisfaction, and wish all of you the best o’ luck on your other projects. I mean no disrespect to any of you and hope no-one thought that. I find all I am doing is repeating myself, which is wasting all our time which is exactly the kind of thing I believe the AGW ‘debate’ is about. Let’s get on with the permaculture. Sorry!

Cheers,
Andy

P.S. Thomas,
“there indeed are people who still dream of a world-wide communist revolution and try to bend climate change policy so that it pushed forward their agenda. (I would much like to see an example of such a group where this is similarly self-evident as with the Objectivists.)”

You just about described the UN, World Bank and the IMF etc! It’s harder to see than the Objectivists, because it is Global, and less cult-like in that there is no one leader/guru to focus on.

I find it amazing that people don’t believe in conspiracies. Everywhere I have worked, every organization I’ve ever been involved with was buzzing with conspiracies! It’s what humans do in a civilized environment. And when you’re winning, it’s fun too.

I just want to point out my main problem with your argument. After reading your responses here, I’ve noticed a pattern in which you submit a denial talking point and then proclaim that nothing is proven. Inevitably, someone refutes your talking point, after which you complain about being pulled into “nitty gritty details” or “boring academic debates”.

So, it seems that you’re content to rely on the simple fact that a contradicting opinion EXISTS as your proof that nothing is “proven”. And since nothing is proven, AGW must not be true. I hope you see the fallacy in this approach.

First of all, it is EXTREMELY important that you focus on the veracity of the “skeptical” claims that you continously present, rather than the simple fact that they exist. In nearly EVERY case, if you objectively compare your talking points with their rebuttals, you will find that your talking points are bogus. It is not sufficient to rest on the fact that there is an opposition to AGW. No, we must take care to examine their claims. Therefore, it is imperative that we do exactly that which you have lamented: get into the “nitty gritty details”.

The truth here is that, rather than being an unbiased bystander, you are a hardened denier, who has been fooled by the various fallacies that exist in the blogosphere about supposed corruption and incompetence in science. You have, however, proven that one can be environmentally conscious without understanding climate change, but how much greater could your total effectiveness be if you incorporated an approach to global warming?

All I’m asking is that you consider another re-examinination of your beliefs, as you say you’ve done in the past. I know for a FACT that each and every one of your talking points can be easily debunked, if you’d only take the time to consider the details.

between the lines, I read that your actual problem might be a very different one. All this sounds as if you once got drawn into “fighting to save the climate at any price – even that of integrity”. I can imagine one can get there, and yes, there are a some people around who spread harebrained ideas about science and climate because they are convinced that this would “serve a higher purpose”.

Also, yes, I can indeed see that there is a small fraction of ideological dreamers who see climate change as either a great opportunity to push on with their own agenda, or a serious threat to their deeply held beliefs. Take, for example, Ayn Rand’s “Objectivist” cult. They essentially regard fire as holy, and the engineer as priest-like in his mission to use fire to the largest possible extent to fight nature. Of course, to them, climate change appears as “a sinister plot by the evil forces that constantly try to extinguish the holy fire”. On the other hand, there indeed are people who still dream of a world-wide communist revolution and try to bend climate change policy so that it pushed forward their agenda. (I would much like to see an example of such a group where this is similarly self-evident as with the Objectivists.)

While such “ideological camps” exist, I’d estimate that they make up at most 10% of the population – perhaps much less. The big problem is that, as these ideologists believe that their cherished beliefs have come under attack, which they consider a far more pressing problem than climate change itself(!), they become very vocal and put a lot of effort into trying to dominate the discussion. So, if you just sampled, say, the comments to articles on climate change on the major news websites, you would get the impression that more than 80% of the population were in one or the other such ideological camp. But, as I pointed out, this is false, because what we observe is ideologists competing for attention.

The important point is this statement from your last post:
“both sides are wrong and corrupt and liars.” First of all, I have a serious problem with the concept of “both sides” here. Take, for example, Lovelock (who again was in the news recently). I take it you would classify him as being on the “climate change is a very real threat we have to do something about” ’side’. (I could name people other than Lovelock here for which my point would be equally true.) Now, while I have myself come to the conclusion that climate change indeed needs to be addressed, my impression is that few “deniers” have done as much harm as people like Lovelock, who keep on poisoning the discussion. Now, this must be qualified: I am fairly sure that, if we just sat together with Lovelock and had a chat with him, what he has to say would sound way more down to earth and way less radical than what the press writes about his views. But the big problem is that evidently, he still does not seem to have learned to talk to the press, and how journalists distort things – considering what he talks about, he by now really should have! So, yes, Lovelock says we have to address climate change, and I say we have to address climate change. But under no circumstances would I want to be labeled as “on the same side as Lovelock”.

A key problem with this issue is that the human mind is extremely adept at making up rational-sounding explanations to itself. We are all prone to fooling ourselves. Being smart does not help even the slightest bit here, for, if you are smart, you also have smart ways to fool yourself. This, then, is precisely the difference between “intelligence” and “wisdom”. Wisdom is all about one’s capacity to discover self-deception.

If you start to observe things a bit closer, you will soon see how inappropriate the concept of these two “species” is: the “anything goes to get people to the point where they do something against climate change” people and the “climate change is nothing but a conspiracy by sinister worshippers of a world government dream” people. But, to get there, you have to be able to sift through a lot of noise and nonsense.

Personally, I have come to the conclusion that CO2 is a red herring. If just CO2 were the problem, we would not even be in the present situation, because we would have done something about it many decades ago. Note that people (by and large) do not die from Cholera in our cities, because we found one way to design sanitation so that it no longer is a problem. The easy problems you do not notice because they have been solved. The far deeper problem is that we are at present so bad at analyzing the role of self-deception. Solve the self-deception problem, I say, and as soon as people have a clear perspective on climate change related problems, tackling them becomes straightforward. Easy – by no means; but fairly straightforward.

My view is that anyone who spreads bullshit about climate change – one way or the other – does serious damage. So, quality control is an extremely important issue here. Considering the articles on permaculture.org.au, my impression is that Craig is doing a great job on all topics covered, including climate change, to keep all the poison out and bring a lot of insightful articles in.

If I am allowed to make a “prophecy”, I’d say that, if there still are people around 1000 years into the future, they will call our time not the “age of cheap energy” or “fossil fuel age”, or “age of material abundance” or any such thing, but rather the “age of confusion”, the “age of self-deception” or something similar along these lines. After all, all our problems are about what activities human effort gets directed to in our society, hence, ultimately, economics. So, I have to ask: how confused do we have to be to consider an economic belief system as a good idea that transforms valuable resources to waste and pollution at mind-boggling speed? If we come to this insight that the problem is confusion about what is worthwile to direct human effort towards and what is not, there still will be people around in 1000 years’ time. If not, there most likely won’t.