From Andrew Orlowski, the Register UK:
In Parliament’s enquiries into the Climategate Affair, Graham Stringer MP was surprised to learn that the CRU team couldn’t produce the same result twice.
“When I asked Oxburgh if [Keith] Briffa [CRU academic] could reproduce his own results, he said in lots of cases he couldn’t,” Stringer told us. “That just isn’t science. It’s literature. If somebody can’t reproduce their own results, and nobody else can, then what is that work doing in the scientific journals?”
Full story (well worth the read, please support the online advertiser driven Register by visiting) here (h/t to WUWT reader “Rational Debate”).
In case you’ve never seen it, the Journal of Irreproducible Results actually exists, and can be found here. They have an interesting book, Extreme Weather as it is linked to “global warming”.
So, what the crew at CRU are producing can be called Climythology, I guess.
If these guys cannot even predict the past, such as getting repeatable proxy results from a single tree, how the hell do they expect to predict the future? Do they read chicken entrails, tea leaves, or do they just throw dice?
Climate Skeptic has got what in my opinion is a very good answer as to how the warmist alarmist cli-myth modellers do it: http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2011/07/return-of-the-plug.html
They vary the earosol effect according to the type of model used so as to get the desired projected warming due to CO2.
Roy says:
“Over here in the UK (and I suspect in many countries) our anti-drug policies are based on ‘feeling’ rather than science. When the chief scientist to advise our government on the mis-use of drugs pointed out that cannabis is less harmful than alcohol and tobacco, he was promptly sacked!”
And it was a very good thing indeed that he was sacked. It is not the job of scientists to decide whether or not mind altering drugs should be legal. We have enough problems with misuse of alcohol and with tobacco, which does not really have any legitimate use (deliberately inhaling smoke is not natural). Legalising cannabis would encourage its use and only a moron would want to add to existing problems.
I’ll leave your arguments about legalization aside and just ask you for clarification on one point:
You really think it’s good that a scientist should be fired for pointing out a fact?