This is a week of extremes in quotes about climate. On one end of the scale we have professor Steven Schneider with a set of quotes so beyond the absurd, that he now has his own “jumping the shark” TV sitcom moment.
On the other end, we have the New Scientist, shocking warmists and skeptics alike with some hardcore doubt about the outcome of the Muir-Russell and other Climategate inquiries. They write:
But what happened to intellectual candour – especially in conceding the shortcomings of these inquiries and discussing the way that science is done. Without candour, public trust in climate science cannot be restored, nor should it be.
and…
Russell’s team left other stones unturned. They decided against detailed analysis of all the emails in the public domain. They examined just three instances of possible abuse of peer review, and just two cases when CRU researchers may have abused their roles as authors of IPCC reports. There were others. They have not studied hundreds of thousands more unpublished emails from the CRU. Surely openness would require their release.
All this, plus the failure to investigate whether emails were deleted to prevent their release under freedom of information laws, makes it harder to accept Russell’s conclusion that the “rigour and honesty” of the scientists concerned “are not in doubt”.
Full article here at The New Scientist
From CRS dr phd’s article:
“Climategate caught media attention as it appeared to show damning revelations of alleged misconduct by researchers at the UK’s University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) indicated by leaked emails in November 2009.”
Oh yeah, I remember that. It “caught media attention” alright – several weeks after it broke and could no longer be ignored! It “caught media attention” in late DECEMBER! That’s when they started asking hard questions. For example, they asked skeptics, “So what are you saying, that there is some kind of vast global global warming conspiracy?!”
Read more at Suite101: Does New Scientist Foresee Paradigm Shift on Climate Theory? http://news.suite101.com/article.cfm/does-new-scientist-see-paradigm-shift-on-greenhouse-gas-theory-a263695#ixzz0uHxzyoab
Vigilantfish,
You made a good, honest effort. My criticism is this: there are no hypotheses that explain how concentrations of CO2 can cause what climate scientists call “forcings,” such as changes in cloud behavior throughout the atmosphere, yet these “forcings” must exist if CO2 is to cause temperatures to rise by three or so degrees this century. The MAIN POINT here is that THE HYPOTHESES DO NOT EXIST. Think on that for a minute. They DO NOT EXIST. So, when climate scientists claim that temperatures will rise their claims are based on a science that is fundamentally incomplete.