Next time some irrationalist complains about a skeptic sponsored list, that includes scientists that are not climatologists, saying such lists are irrelevant, show them this. Show them also the unspoken pressure that some signers have worried about.
From The Times (emphasis mine):
Top scientists rally to the defence of the Met Office
The Met Office has embarked on an urgent exercise to bolster the reputation of climate-change science after the furore over stolen e-mails.
More than 1,700 scientists have agreed to sign a statement defending the “professional integrity” of global warming research. They were responding to a round-robin request from the Met Office, which has spent four days collecting signatures. The initiative is a sign of how worried it is that e-mails stolen from the University of East Anglia are fuelling scepticism about man-made global warming at a critical moment in talks on carbon emissions.
One scientist said that he felt under pressure to sign the circular or risk losing work. The Met Office admitted that many of the signatories did not work on climate change.
…
One scientist told The Times he felt under pressure to sign. “The Met Office is a major employer of scientists and has long had a policy of only appointing and working with those who subscribe to their views on man-made global warming,” he said.
…
Benny Peiser, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which claims man-made climate change has been exaggerated, said the petition showed that the Met Office was rattled.
Complete story here at The Times: Top scientists rally to the defence of the Met Office
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Question is:
Can the signees really know that there is no reason to doubt the honesty of the Climategate-implicated individuals?
And if so – how do they know this?
Yeah, I’m sure I would feel no pressure to sign if my funding or my paycheck were in any way dependent on CRU. What a joke. We’ve already seen how they behave and what they think of anyone who disagrees in private. This is like ACORN polling its employees about how trustworthy they think their organization is. Ridiculous.
There’s little chance that many of them have bothered to familiarise themselves with the facts. Is this a good time to remind everyone that it was only about a dozen years ago that the Director-General and Chief Executive of the Met Office left over some infelicity to do with money? (And please don’r guffaw when I say that he ended up on the Labour benches in the House of Lords.)
Delphi Voting, Chicago style!
The best analogy to all of this is “Big Tobacco”.
The way “Big Climate” operates is reminiscent of the now defunct “Tobacco Institute.”
Here they go with the authority argument again. Adding to that, pressure to sign. Are they really so stupid they don’t think this will get out and make them look even worse for the effort? What morons.
Mark
The Met seems to have picked up the baton dropped by the CRU of ‘alarmists in chief’.
If you’d like to be amoung the rats on this sinking ship, please sign here. Of course one has the option of jumping overboard and drowning immediately, should one so desire… No hurry, no pressure, please take your time.
Sigh, consensus isn’t science, it’s politics by any measure!
They’re making a list.
They’re checking it twice.
Gonna find out who’s naughty or nice.
So if you study climate, you want to be nice. Just sign Santa’s list and let him know you’re nice. Keep those presents (funding) coming.
Not surprising that most are eager to sign. It’s their gravy train after all. Once again we will hear about the “consensus” of scientists who support the research as proof of the validity of the science. These so-called scientists should be ashamed of themselves.
What’s this got to do with science? Vouching for one another’s work isn’t much in the way of tightly reasoned argument.
This once fine institution seems rather poor in the UK. Its now like a PR company to justify the pro-government stance. They used to be good at predicting weather – had an excellent standard and understood the climate when they focussed on observation and understanding. I’m sure if they returned to the techniques of meteorology hitherto used, they might once again predict the weather.
I tried to lay down all my issues with the science underpinning global warming. As someone who reviews NASA missions for feasibility, knowing what they are doing, use of professional and sound practices, etc. I would fail the fad that is AGW.
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11824
It is wrong in so many ways.
vukcevic (08:17:57) : Your comment is awaiting moderation
As I said on the previous thread:
Science by consensus?
Very odd.
Is ClimateGate equivalent to the …
The
Ninety-Five Theses1073 e-mails on the Power and Efficacy ofIndulgencesAnthropogenic Global Warming ?I thought that only “climate ” scientists were able to speak about climate change??
I used this once before when the Met Office released that data subset as proof that CRU didn’t fudge the data and the proof contained adjusted data from CRU.
This is an alleged counterfeiter, handing over a counterfeit $20 bill to prove they are not a counterfeiter.
A computer model is programmed to show warming for given inputs of CO2, positive & negative feedbacks are guessed at best based on assumptions that may or may not be correct on how thousands of parameters that go to make up climate actually respond to one another or in groups of varying amounts of composition. The net result though is to show a warming atmosphere at the end. This computer is no Deep Thought & cannot draw its own conlcusions based on its own assessments, it has to be told by humans what to do by programmers. These guys have really lost it IMHO.
I recall a team in France carrying out experimentation & gathering data to “prove” that Homeopathic medicine actually (no offence anybody) works scientifically, some years ago now. When their data did actually show this, the results were undone in minutes when analysed INDEPENDENTLY. It was pointed out to them that they had accidentally pre-ordained the result by their experimental methods which had become corrupted, simply because the team director believed the medicine did work & wanted to prove it. They were devastated, naturally. Such thoughts cannot be far from the brains of these climate guys, to admit they could be wrong would destroy careers, jobs, pensions, departments, whole universites, every thing & anything associated with it.
For any given argument, the guys who are screaming blue bloody murder at the tops of their voices on one particular side, are usually in the wrong!
They’re 800 scientists light.
Same old same old
Skeptics: There are some serious scientific questions about AGW evidence
AGW Proponents: No, No it’s okay trust us.
Nice, big computer. But I’d like to know which end the garbage goes into.
It is very unusual to see rats jumping on board a sinking ship.
How ironic that a profession dedicated to “truth” can be pressured into lying. Bring on the cold!! Sorry Pam, desperate situations require desperate solutions.
As a Brit, I am ashamed of the way in British science has been corrupted into “post-modernist science”