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.
For anyone still working on the ‘Smoking Code’ example posted on 5th Dec. My guess (with contributions from Carsten Arnholm, Norway, thanks) is that the filenames in the Fortran code correspond as follows:
29. harryfn=[‘nwcan’,’wnam’,’cecan’,’nweur’,’sweur’,’nsib’,’csib’,’tib’,$
30. ‘esib’,’allsites’]
nwcan = North West Canada
wnam = Western North America
cecan = Central Canada
nweur = North West Europe
sweur = South West Europe
nsib = North Siberia
csib = Central Siberia
tib = Tibet
esib = East Siberia
Don’t know what allsites means but sounds dodgy. Double counting?
“I’d really like you to sign this union card since we don’t need no secret ballot election… and don’t pay no mind to my buddy here with the baseball bat.”
Post Normal Science or PNS. look it up. first postulated by this chap: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Ravetz.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-normal_science
a certain Mike Hulme recently collaborated with mr Ravetz wrote this piece for the beeb advocating it called show your working: what climategate means:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8388485.stm
a travesty that will take a generation to disentangle from some british scientific institutions.
‘Because of this, advocates of post-normal science suggest that there must be an “extended peer community” consisting of all those affected by an issue who are prepared to enter into dialogue on it. [like politicians and pressure groups, my edit]They bring their “extended facts”, that will include local knowledge and materials not originally intended for publication such as leaked official information. There is a political case for this extension of the franchise of science; but Funtowicz and Ravetz also argue that this extension is necessary for assuring the quality of the process and of the product.’ PRODUCT???? does that sound like science?
I will believe in what the Met office says only if they hire Steve McIntyre for a year to perform an independent audit, and let him lead a group of 50 scientists of his own choosing with access to all temperature records and all temperature-massaging and modeling software worldwide. Also, if they had access to old emails at GISS, NOAA, NCAR/UCAR, the Met Office, CRU etc., it would help them to find the problems more quickly.
Make it a wholly open process with all data available on the web, in order to leverage the free labor of groups such as the readers of WUWT. Certain tasks such as data collection could be formally farmed out to groups of amateurs (e.g. the surface stations project). The global warmists want the people of the world to get involved, but I suppose this may not be what they had in mind.
Posing in front of that “Deep Black” thing… looks like a “New Age” witch.
Seems like saying: “We can´t be wrong cause we got this computer”…
Come on!
“So since the Met Office is quite sure; even “unequivocally” so that the “e-mails” were STOLEN, can we please have along with this listof 1700 British Climate luminaries, the name of the individual, or a list of the several individuals who carried out this theft;”
——————————————–
Seeing that the recent publication on WUWT of the analysis of the data showed that it was far more likely that this data was compiled by the people at CRU, and therefore that this was an inside job, and the complete lack of proof of any “hacker stealing” this data, it does paint a very poor picture of these alarmists not only being very poor scientists, but of being “tinfoil-hat conspiracy nuts” as well.
Just because this data was posted to a Russian site, does NOT mean that Russians stole it. Especially since the BBC had this data a full month before it appeared on the Russian server.
Well I went through just one page of comments, but did not find a single favourable one – Should I go on to page two?
I’ve heard quite often people equate CO2 footprints to breathing and it made me wonder if this was an actual measure used seriously by the alarmists when talking about carbon footprints.
Am I wrong? but isn’t the carbon we exhale not just carbon that was already in the air in the first place? Isn’t breathing carbon neutral in the same way as bio-fuel?
Monkton has joined UKIP? Well that seals the deal. I am voting UKIP in 2010!
🙂
The best definition ever: “Hollywood Science” (Prof.Khabibulo Abdusamatov, head of the Pulkovo Observatory, Saint Petersburg) when asked about “climate change”).
It doesn’t matter how many brilliant, or honorable scientists sign any paper about the integrity of any study, if the source of the data is questionable, or poor, or the data itself has been corrupted, modified, or manipulated in any inappropriate way, the conclusions are still junk! Honesty and integrity are no substitute for bad data, or bad methodology, or misdirected conclusions. I don’t care how honest the operator, garbage going into the machine equals garbage out! If 90% of the data is garbage, and then you add more garbage to modify the original garbage, what percent of the conclusion is also garbage? It is amazing that so called intelligent and educated people can demonstrate so much ignorance… But, it has been thus in all of history. It is no wonder that scientists have to die before the next generation is allowed to progress!!!
Stephen
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6950783.ece
I count 40 signees from the University of Glasgow – that’s quite a heavy load for its size.
Note that the head of the ClimateGate inquiry at UAE is Sir Muir Russell – ex Glasgow University… Sign of things to come?
When the boss goes around to at-will employees who can be fired for any reason, or for no reason at all, and ‘asks’ them to sign a petition, who is going to refuse? And they call that “spontaneous”. The Met officials lie like a child.
The OISM Petition, on the other hand, was entirely voluntary, although there was still some employment risk involved for those willing to sign their names to it.
The OISM Petition was voluntarily circulated during the run-up to Kyoto. To refresh everyone’s memory, the Petition states:
More than 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition. They were required to have degrees in the hard sciences [Chemistry, Physics, etc.], and the Petition was restricted to U.S. residents. The credentials of all signers were verified.
The OISM signers could not email their petition. They had to download and print it, or get a hard copy; sign and date it, apply postage and mail it in. The fact that far more of them did that voluntarily [compared with the Met’s thuggish tactics], shows conclusively that the claims of AGW “consensus” is as much based on fraud as the Met’s strong-arm tactics [the unspoken message: “Sign this, or your job is at risk.”]
As one quoted Met employee said, “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.”
Any defenders of the Met’s underhanded tactics: please tell us how the Met’s ‘statement’ means anything at all.
So who’s cross checking the names
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6950783.ece
with the CRU emails to see who comes up in what “context”
Maj. Eaton: We have top men working on it now.
Indiana: Who?
Maj. Eaton: Top… men.
wws (08:42:22) :
This is the same thing as a government demanding loyalty oaths.
———————————————————————————–
My reaction, exactly. “You’re either with us or against us.”
So much for the principles of good science.
Note that the wording of the Met Office petition says that it includes students; so not only are not all these people climate scientists, some may not yet be qualified scientists in any field.
Some shock news just in:
10,000,000 British turkeys vote to abolish Christmas (and 50,000,000 US turkeys vote to abolish Thanksgiving).
OK they have 1700 scientists who signed their statement. We, the skeptics, have 31,000 who signed the petition on Global Warming
http://www.petitionproject.org/
and 700 who signed the Manhattan Declaration
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=1
They can attack our list and we can attack theirs. But the important point is that the science is absolutely not settled. We should not be embarking on treaties or legislation based on claims of scientific consensus when there clearly is no consensus.
Would you trust a scientist who backs an organisation that can’t give reliable weather information for tomorrow but knows what will happen in 10, 20 , 30,… years’ time?
This whole charade is a clear sign of panic let’s hope some sensible people in government see the light.
Nothing more oppressive than a old ninny in an academic environment who wields a long ruler.
Circling the wagons, as opposed to simply being honest, is just not going to work.
Ken Hall (09:06:56) :
Good for you! They’ve got this on the UKIP site too
http://www.ukip.org/content/latest-news/1364-lord-monckton-on-climate-change
Once again, you have to go to Russia Today for news in the UK. The irony is just gob-smacking. When you think of the days of Gorbachev in hiding listening to the BBC.
Is there any way to get a list of the “scientists” at the associated institutions that DIDN’T sign? If there were none, then the coercion is obvious.
This is what the face of left-wing McCarthyism looks like.
Met Office probably decided to [in low raspy voice] “make ’em an offer they couldn’t refuse.”