Monckton submits this rebuttal argument to the piece in the New Scientist Stamp out anti-science in US politics here. He doesn’t expect his rebuttal to be published.
Background: Paul Nurse is a Nobel prizewinner and Royal Society president.
Stamp out anti-science in UK science
By Christopher Monckton
It is time to reject UK political movements that masquerade as scientific societies while turning their backs on science, says former adviser to Margaret Thatcher FRS Christopher Monckton
IF YOU respect science you will probably be disturbed by the following opinions.
On climate: true science may be found in “the consensus opinions of experts” [1], we can “say with assurance that human activities cause weather changes” [1], recent variations are not “natural, cyclical environmental trends” [1], the manmade CO2’s contribution to the annual carbon cycle is not the 3% imagined by the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC, but 86% [2], “anthropogenic climate change is already affecting every aspect of our lives” [3],
On freedom of information requests asking publicly-funded scientists for their data: the requests are “a tool to intimidate some scientists” [4].
On a sceptical interviewer: the force of Sir Paul’s replies had left him “tongue-tied” and had compelled him to stop the cameras on several occasions, when the interviewer had in fact told Sir Paul he suffered from hypoglycaemia and needed to take regular breaks to maintain his glucose intake [5].
On US politics: voters should not choose Republicans [1].
You would probably be even more disturbed to be told that these are the opinions expressed not by some climate scientist or politician but by Sir Paul Nurse, the geneticist who heads the world’s oldest taxpayer-funded lobby-group, the grandly-named and lavishly-grant-aided Royal Society.
It’s alarming that a country which leads the world in science – the home of Isaac Newton, Lord Kelvin and James Clerk Maxwell – might be turning its back on science. How can this be happening? What can be done?
One problem is treating scientific discussion as if it were political debate. When some scientists try to sway public opinion, they employ the tricks of the debating chamber: cherry-picking data, ignoring the consensus opinions of experts (who, in the peer-reviewed economic literature, are near-unanimous that it is cheaper to pay for the damage arising from any global warming that may occur than to spend anything now on attempted mitigation), adept use of a sneer or a misplaced comparison, reliance on the power of rhetoric rather than argument. They can often get away with this because the media rely too much on confrontational debate in place of reasoned discussion.
It is essential, in public issues, to separate science from politics and ideology. Get the science right first, then discuss the political implications. Scientists also need to work harder at discussing the issues better and more fully in the public arena, clearly identifying what they know and admitting what they don’t know.
Another concern is science teaching in schools. Is it good enough to produce citizens able to cope with public discussions about science? We have to ensure that science is being taught in schools – not pseudoscience such as a one-sided belief in the more luridly fanciful claims of climate extremists. With the rise of politicized science in the UK, measures need to be put in place to safeguard science classes. This has been difficult to maintain particularly in the US.
We need to emphasise why the scientific process is such a reliable generator of knowledge – with its respect for evidence, for scepticism, for consistency of approach, for the constant testing of ideas. Everyone should know and understand why the processes that lead to astronomy are more reliable than those that lead to astrology, or the wilder conclusions of the environmental propagandists adopted as though they were science by the IPCC and naively but profitably parroted by the likes of Nurse.
Finally, scientific leaders have a responsibility to expose the bunkum, not to perpetuate it. Scientists have not always been proactive about this. They need to be vigilant about what is being said in the public arena. They need to be vigilant about what scientific societies are publicising about science in their name, as four Fellows of the Royal Society did recently in forcing a complete and now largely sensible rewrite of the Society’s previously extremist statement about climate science. They take on the Paul Nurses when necessary. At elections, scientists should ensure that science is on the agenda and nonsense is exposed. If that nonsense is extreme enough – as Sir Paul’s ill-informed statements on climate science have been – then the response should be very public.
If scientists and scientific societies in the UK are anti-science and are allowed to carry the day it will ultimately hurt the British economy. The best scientists will head for the established leaders of science, such as the emerging powerhouses of China and India, whose leaders have realized that the climate scare has been more than somewhat oversold. But beyond that, the Royal Society’s present leadership will damage the UK’s standing in the world. Who will be able to take those leaders seriously? Scientists may not care, but they should.
Science is worth fighting for. It helps us understand the world and ourselves better and will benefit all humanity.
We have to hope that the people of the UK will see through some of the nonsense being foisted on them by vocal minorities. It is time to reject – and to de-fund – political movements that pose as scientific societies while rejecting science and taking us back into the dark rather than forward into a more enlightened future.
Acknowledgements
Nearly all of this article was written by Sir Paul Nurse and published in New Scientist on September 14. With remarkably few changes, the present article comes to a legitimate conclusion opposite to that of Sir Paul. The New Scientist will not print it, of course.
References
- Nurse, P, 2011, Stamp out science in US politics, New Scientist, November 14, http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128302.900-stamp-out-antiscience-in-us-politics.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news
- Booker, C, 2011, How BBC warmists abuse the science, Sunday Telegraph, January 29, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8290469/How-BBC-warmists-abuse-the-science.html#dsq-content.
- Motl, L., 2011, BBC Horizon: president of Royal Society defends AGW ideology, The Reference Frame, January 25, http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/01/bbc-horizon-president-of-royal-society.html
- Jha, A., 2011, Freedom of information laws are used to harass scientists, The Guardian, May 25. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/25/freedom-information-laws-harass-scientists.
- Delingpole, J., 2011, Sir Paul Nurse’s big boo-boo, climaterealists.com, January 30, http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7127.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
SethP says:
September 17, 2011 at 5:03 pm
> History has been eliminated and replaced with “Social Studies class”. What will happen to science?
The answer is – it will evolve into Internet polls if not yet. The [cut] *) “poll culture” is pervasive in the so called western demo(crapo)cracies. Alas, I read them too many times on the WUWT pages as well. Poll say this, poll say that, etc. as if it has any meaning in real life. Another item in big box of brainwashing tools.
Regards
*) enter any expletive you like
Nuke Nemesis says:
September 17, 2011 at 2:08 pm
If you can, find today’s Wall Street Journal and read Daniel Yergin’s essay “There will be Whales” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904060604576572552998674340.html, which exposes the origins of the Peak Whale concept and why it’s nonsense.
Addendum
After I wrote about the “polls” on WUWT pages I have checked the WUWT homepage and what I see – YEAH!- another f*** poll on what public think on climate matters. Pathetic.
Mr Watts, give us more polls, and only polls. They are Science of the Future. Better be ready.
Regards
Nick says:
September 17, 2011 at 5:34 pm
Monckton: “One problem is treating scientific discussion as if it were political debate” There follows a laying out of a modus operandi that is actually Monckton’s,not his target’s. If Monckton thinks this is a problem,then perhaps he should not do it…
======================================================
Nick, Monckton’s entire comment was a parody of Nurse’s comment. The problem is, it is the scientists that have politicized the discussion. See their unholy marriage with politics by forming the IPCC. I can easily state that if they’d not ventured to the world of politics many of us would have never engaged in the discussion, and probably Monckton, too.
It seems to me, that Monchton’s engagement with political activists should be encouraged. I know I’m glad he does. If they wish to wrap themselves in their psuedo-science, so be it.
@ur momisugly Seth, your Snopes link doesn’t say what you seem to infer. You should read all of the link.
Kev-in-UK says
.the words p*ssing and ocean come readily to mind…
——–
Go to China, look upwards, admire the Great Pall of China. This is the geoengineering on a scale never before attempted.
For each ton of aerosols used to build the Great Pall of China there is a much greater tonnage of CO2 that is essentially black over about 20% of the thermal emission spectrum of the earth. We have already increased the amount of CO2 and will continue to do so for the indefinite future. 20% will become 22% (just making stuff up here).
So we are already geoenginerring the climate.
Przemysław Pawełczyk says:
September 17, 2011 at 5:57 pm
Addendum
After I wrote about the “polls” on WUWT pages I have checked the WUWT homepage and what I see – YEAH!- another f*** poll on what public think on climate matters. Pathetic.
Mr Watts, give us more polls, and only polls. They are Science of the Future. Better be ready.
===================================================================
Oddly enough, there’s a Rueter’s poll that runs counter to the poll referenced by Anthony! lol…… yes, we’re polled, surveyed, and consensused to the extreme. And, they are of little value or meaning, unless you’re a politician that wants to know what the public wants him/her to think.
James Sexton says:
September 17, 2011 at 6:02 pm
“@ur momisugly Seth, your Snopes link doesn’t say what you seem to infer. You should read all of the link.”
——————————-
You’re right, I made my point poorly. If you were to go back and take a test that you took in high school today, you will probably do worse than you did originally. I think this is a disingenuous tool.
What I always thought was that people used to learn advanced math on a chalk board and now they truck hundreds of computers into classrooms to “help” teach and get the opposite effect. Children today struggle with basic concepts in science and math and that leaves them open to all sorts of manipulation. We’ve spent the most money per student in the world and created some of the worst students in the world.
LazyTeenager says:
September 17, 2011 at 6:13 pm
“For each ton of aerosols used to build the Great Pall of China there is a much greater tonnage of CO2 that is essentially black over about 20% of the thermal emission spectrum of the earth. ”
Look up Kirchhoff’s Law and come back when you have understood it.
James Sexton says:
September 17, 2011 at 6:13 pm
> …unless you’re a politician that wants to know what the public wants him/her to think.
Just like the US puppet, a Tony Blair was his name as I recall correctly, who reportedly started days reading popularity polls. That Tony Blair, cute boy…
Regards
Theo Goodwin says
Why is it that when people discuss the teaching of evolution in high schools they never refer to the facts.
——
Err the point being made was that intelligent design is a religious theory and not a scientific theory. Therefore it should not be included in science classes.
And in response you produced an irrelevant rant about the limitations of science teaching with respect to Darwinism. This is an argument to improve the teaching of evolution.
It is not an argument to insert into science classes your favorite creation myth via some bogus Trojan horse theory.
It is not argument to allow you to insert your favorite debating points into science classes with the intention of discrediting the science of evolution.
Debating points are about convincing people. People who care a lot about debating points typically don’t care a lot about telling the truth.
SethP says:
September 17, 2011 at 6:21 pm
James Sexton says:
September 17, 2011 at 6:02 pm
“@ur momisugly Seth, your Snopes link doesn’t say what you seem to infer. You should read all of the link.”
——————————-
You’re right, I made my point poorly. If you were to go back and take a test that you took in high school today, you will probably do worse than you did originally. I think this is a disingenuous tool.
=========================================================
I hadn’t seen that Smokey had already addressed or I would not have mentioned it. That said, it could be that it does mislead. But, the point I take from it, is that we often like to think we’ve progressed in knowledge well beyond what was known a century ago, when, in fact, in many ways we’ve regressed.
I think you nailed it as to spending. In this country, we equate a proper education with the amount of money we spend towards our educational system. But that isn’t true. As you stated, we’ve spent an enormous amount of money and we’ve produced some very lack-luster generations.
I was contemplating this just the other day. With the internet and other information exchanging technologies, we have nearly all accumulated human knowledge at our fingertips. This is very disquieting for me. We’ve given the citizens of this world great power to wield, yet, we haven’t properly trained them in its use. There is no discernment as to what is true and what isn’t. We haven’t taught logic or critical thinking. Is there such a thing as a course in philosophy, anymore? We frown upon moral teachings. Even worse yet, the principles of liberty and democracy, if taught at all, are twisted and bastardized into unrecognizable concepts. Further, as you’ve pointed out, we’ve brought them computers to “help” them think.
Nothing illustrates these difficulties better than the current climate debate. Many people believe computer models actually are good substitutes for reality. I try over and over again to explain there is no such thing as AI, but the idea persists. They are programs, they will render the results they were designed to render! Even earlier in this very thread there are people confused as to the nature of the abortion debate. It hasn’t a thing to do with science, it has everything to do with ethics and morals. (For anyone wondering, I don’t consider it murder, but I understand and respect the ideas of the people that do.)
BTW, thanks to you, Seth and Smokey, you’ve given me a nice idea for my next posting. 🙂
Bulldust says
——–
Secondly there is this miraculous thing in economics called “substitution.” Long before oil is exhausted substitutes shall be taking its place
——–
But I thought you climate skeptic guys were dead set against giving up oil and coal.
Afterall the whole thrust of AGW legistlation has been to:
1. Increase energy use efficiency, thus reducing the price of fuel via supply and demand
2. and to find economical substitutes for oil and coal,
3. and to remove market barriers to new technologies that may eventually be cheaper.
Instead lots of disparaging remarks here directed at discrediting any attempt to ensure that any transition to new energy sources is not economically disruptive.
The other Brian says
He says planets with a high albedo are cooler than planets with a low albedo – WRONG.
———
That doesnt sound right. Theoretically higher albedo means more sunlight reflected and therefore lower temperature.
Seth P says
This is just one example of the stuff placed in your head in high school by teachers who are just self deluded and also lack critical thinking skills.
———-
I think it more likely that the teacher was playing a practical joke and your relative failed to notice.
I am glad that you were both
1. Skeptical
2. Knew how to test whether the idea was right or wrong
Seems your education was ok.
[REPLY: Consider this your only warning for the evening. Your comments have been a series of one-liners and put-downs. Contribute substantively to the discussion or be snipped. -REP, mod]
LazyTeenager says:
September 17, 2011 at 6:39 pm
You did not understand a word that I wrote. Everything you said was an ad hominem. I really recommend that Anthony ban you.
LazyTeenager says:
September 17, 2011 at 6:56 pm
Bulldust says
——–
Secondly there is this miraculous thing in economics called “substitution.” Long before oil is exhausted substitutes shall be taking its place
——–
But I thought you climate skeptic guys were dead set against giving up oil and coal.
Afterall the whole thrust of AGW legistlation has been to:
1. Increase energy use efficiency, thus reducing the price of fuel via supply and demand
2. and to find economical substitutes for oil and coal,
3. and to remove market barriers to new technologies that may eventually be cheaper.
Instead lots of disparaging remarks here directed at discrediting any attempt to ensure that any transition to new energy sources is not economically disruptive.
==========================================================
LT, first, we must find an suitable substitute first. Skeptics aren’t dead set against giving up coal and oil, we’re dead set against giving up human progress. Find something as cheap, plentiful and effective as either and I’ll stand behind it. Heck, if I had my way, we’d all be driving hydrogen fueled vehicles by now.
Secondly, your list of 1,2, and 3 ……… if that was the thrust, they’ve entirely botched it in their execution. So far, the only effective measure to reduce energy use has been to increase the cost. This has had a devastating effect towards your numbers 2 and 3, and the world’s economy in general. How does one expect to find economical substitutes when the entire world is destitute?
We haven’t removed market barriers, we’ve built them by backing known failures. The overwhelming majority of our capital has been spent in true Quixotic fashion, in terms of R&D and venture capital. Presently, if one wants some capital to pursue alternative sources of fuel and energy, one must suggest known failures that do nothing but either increase cost, lower availability, and decrease efficiency. There also has been the added benefit of decreasing the world’s food supply.
These are the things that cause people such as myself to engage in an attempt to thwart this madness. If your 1,2,3 list was truly the intent, it shows how little the ideas were based in reality and a complete failure to understand what drives markets and innovation.
James Sexton says:
September 17, 2011 at 6:53 pm
I think you have made a few errors.
1. > I was contemplating this just the other day. With the internet and other information exchanging technologies, we have nearly all accumulated human knowledge at our fingertips. (…) We’ve given the citizens of this world great power to wield, yet, we haven’t properly trained them in its use.
First af all, the true knowledge is hidden behind paid services, registers, and other logical barriers. Even Encyclopedia Britannica is guarded by subscription. FOIA and Wikipedia are two exemplary items of the remedies for the problem. Alas, Wikipedia is of such poor quality some called it Crapedia.
For the second, “the world at your fingertips” is also a myth, conjured up by Mr Bill Gates of Microsoft. So it is not the lack of skills, but first – the lack of free flow of knowledge, second – primitive software tools to search the “accumulated human knowledge”. For example IBM developed IBM/OS 2 desktop/home operating system in 90s which was controlled by voice (to some extent). The technology was implemented then it simply vanished from the market. And so on and on…
> Even worse yet, the principles of liberty and democracy
These are two opposite concepts. Democracy is a tyranny in nature, contrary to liberty. The tyranny of mobs where one votes against 10 or 100 milion voters. The U.S.A. was once a republic where the personal liberty were guarded by Law, not by the People. Now they have pointed out a Democracy and they ended up with the greatest police-state in the world. In short one should say that Republic is the rule of Law, with Democracy being the rules of Mobs.
> Even earlier in this very thread there are people confused as to the nature of the abortion debate. It hasn’t a thing to do with science, it has everything to do with ethics and morals.
Your views contradicts your words in your comment. It IS Science. When someone dies it is science which decides if the sad event has happened. It IS science which says that fetus lives, like me and like You. Fetus is not a bunch of tissues it is a small Man. Abortion kills Him and that fact certifies (settles) Science again. You are dead wrong on abortion but of course you have the “liberty” to have such beliefs, however wrong.
> (For anyone wondering, I don’t consider it murder, but I understand and respect the ideas of the people that do.)
How come? Another contradiction, this time very popular one. You cannot understand and respect the ideas in this matter. It is impossible. You neither understand, nor respect. BTW, how can you respect IDEAS in this matter. Fetus or Small Man is not IDEA, his a MAN. Either you respect other’s life or not. Even abortion is not an IDEA, but an ACT, of killing.
> We haven’t taught logic or critical thinking. Is there such a thing as a course in philosophy, anymore?
Correct, and you are the uneasy example. Of course, it wasn’t my goal to offend you. Just another claim from my side in the course of the discussion.
Regards
Theo Goodwin says:
September 17, 2011 at 7:12 pm
LazyTeenager says:
September 17, 2011 at 6:39 pm
You did not understand a word that I wrote. Everything you said was an ad hominem. I really recommend that Anthony ban you.
————–
If I misunderstood I apologize. But you need to look up the definition of ad hominem.
I attacked what you said (or I think you said). I did not attack you personally as a way of avoiding addressing what you said in a reasoned manner. Therefore i do not believe I subjected you to a ad hominem argument. If you feel personally upset or denigrated because I demolished your argument that is another issue entirely.
I will read what you said again to try to establish if I made a mistake. Or in addition you can explain why I misunderstood you.
[REPLY: Slightly better, but look up the term “demolished”. I don’t think it means what you think it means. -REP, mod]
“LazyTeenager says:
September 17, 2011 at 7:12 pm
Seth P says
This is just one example of the stuff placed in your head in high school by teachers who are just self deluded and also lack critical thinking skills.
———-
I think it more likely that the teacher was playing a practical joke and your relative failed to notice.
I am glad that you were both
1. Skeptical
2. Knew how to test whether the idea was right or wrong
Seems your education was ok.”
————————————————————
No, we still keep in touch with a lot of people from that school, and I also went there. The class was told in a lecture about what the solstice was that as an “effect” you could balance an egg on end. There was also a health teacher whose class consisted of reading “weird but true” new articles that he thought were interesting.
My brother is just as smart or smarter than I am and is much more well read on history. When somebody hears something from a teacher, especially when they are younger, it is usually believed until proven otherwise and my brother just happened to remember it years later as a piece of trivia because it happened to be the winter solstice.
I was able to quickly recognize this as suspect because of skeptical and critical thinking, not my “middle school level” science education.
I don’t appreciate the fact that you think my “relative” was the subject of a “piratical joke” by a science teacher and was none the wiser.
LazyTeenager says:
September 17, 2011 at 7:12 pm
Seth P says
This is just one example of the stuff placed in your head in high school by teachers who are just self deluded and also lack critical thinking skills.
———-
I think it more likely that the teacher was playing a practical joke and your relative failed to notice.
I am glad that you were both
1. Skeptical
2. Knew how to test whether the idea was right or wrong
Seems your education was ok.
[REPLY: Consider this your only warning for the evening. Your comments have been a series of one-liners and put-downs. Contribute substantively to the discussion or be snipped. -REP, mod]
————-
You misunderstand.
My remarks were in defense of school teachers.
I suggested a plausible alternative interpretation of events that reflected less poorly on school teachers.
It was not a put down of anybody.
It was more than one line.
If you want to ban me for defending people who are not here to defend themselves go right ahead.
[REPLY: The suggestion that a teacher would play that sort of a practical joke on students is hardly a defense of them. You are more than capable of contributing substantively to this blog, for example on the If you are getting a Virus message on WUWT thread, where your expertise would be appreciated. Reply with reasoned arguments and links supporting them and your input, even if contrary to the prevailing sentiments here, will be treated with respect. -REP, mod]
LazyTeenager says:
“Err the point being made was that
intelligent designCO2=CAGW is a religioustheoryconjecture and not a scientific theory. Therefore it should not be included in science classes.” There. Fixed it for Lazyboi.LT also says:
“People who care a lot about debating points typically
don’t care a lot about telling the truthare those who consistentlylosewin the debates.” FIFY again.And LT also says:
“Afterall the whole thrust of AGW legistlation has been to:
1. Increase energy use efficiency, thus reducing the price of fuel via supply and demand
2. and to find economical substitutes for oil and coal,
3. and to remove market barriers to new technologies that may eventually be cheaper.”
That is a complete misrepresentation, based on LT’s psychological projection [imputing his own faults onto others]. The fact is that the barriers to the free market are the government’s subsidies of totally inefficient “green” energy scams, such as windmills and solar [Solyndra, anyone?]. The free market will easily provide alternatives to fossil fuels when and if such alternatives are cost-effective. It always has, and it always will.
The government is the only “barrier” to new technologies. But Lazyboi can’t understand the free market, because he has been spoon-fed indoctrination in government schools for his whole mentally lazy life. LT’s belief system is due to the same government interference that got us into the current economic mess. CAGW is only simple-minded Malthusianism, doubled and squared. If LT had any sense, he would understand that.
Gates, I’m not sure what to make of your confidence about U.S. schools. Yes, they are looking for “qualified” teachers of science and math; but what they really mean are “certified” teachers, and being familiar with the courses the K-12 teachers are required to take to become certified, I can say that certification is a pretty low bar to clear.
A few years ago I spent some time in a consultative meeting with the PTSB (Professional Teaching Standards Board) staff from ETS (Educational testing service) and a number of H.S. physics teachers. I was the only college instructor who bothered to attend. We all had to take the PTSB exam as part of our meeting, and I know that the HS teachers had a lot of trouble with it. Perhaps they were once very proficient at physics and have simply become rusty, but I also know that many of them have been teaching physics without much benefit of formal education in the subject. Look, I know for a fact that community colleges in our region have used people to teach transfer courses in physics, who have never, themselves, taken any college-level course in physics. How’s that for qualified?
The high school teachers in the PTSB meeting told me that they actually teach very little physics in high school because the students can’t do very much. They were almost unanimous in stating that they only teach linear mechanics. In the colleges we expect that incoming students have studied some rotational mechanics, some statics, a little thermodynamics, electromagnetism, and perhaps a little optics in addition to linear mechanics. Students are escaping real science completely through “concurrent enrollment” programs.
There is no doubt there are some great HS science teachers, and the propaganda from the K-12 system tries to sell the story that everyone is above average, but in fact, the outcomes are not very good–and that is what matters in the end, isn’t it?
LazyTeenager says:
September 17, 2011 at 5:16 pm
R. Gates says:
September 17, 2011 at 12:30 pm
Ostensibly Monckton and Nurse are saying the same thing…the only difference being the scientists they each choose to believe…i.e. if you don’t believe “my” scientists, you are anti-science. In an age where science can be used to move the political football one direction or another for your team, can a new dark ages be far behind?
———-
Er no.
Its really about the balance of evidence. If there is a whole lot more evidence favoring one position than another then it is likely that the position with more and better quality evidence is correct.
_____
If I recall my history correctly, Milankovitch was largely ignored when he first proposed his “rediculous” notion that astronomical cycles could drive the climate…the consensus was against him, and only came around after the overwhlelming evidence proved his hypothesis correct. So one ought not base their weighing of likely validity based on the consensus, but rather, on the science. In the case of anthropogenic climate change…I happen to concure with the consensus, but not because they are the consensus, but because I’ve looked at, and continue to look at the science.
Smokey says:
September 17, 2011 at 5:49 pm
I know it’s a fabrication because it was stated by Smokey says:
September 17, 2011 at 5:49 pm
LT says:
“And how would you know if that is a ‘fabrication’ or not? …pick up a mirror and ask yourself have you ever made unsupported claims about the motivations of climate scientists along the lines of ‘they are making stuff up to get fame and fortune’.”
I know it’s a fabrication because it was stated by the inventor himself. When he was fabricating 13 years of missing temperature data, Harry the programmer wrote: “I can just make it up as I go along. So I have.”the inventor himself. When he was fabricating 13 years of missing temperature data, Harry the programmer wrote: “I can just make it up as I go along. So I have.”
———–
Smokey, I know this is your favorite thing but as I have argued before I think you are over-interpreting this. I claim Harry is not likely to be a climate scientist, he is not a professional programmer and he is not likely to be an expert in data analysis.
A plausible scenario would be that Harry was asked to execute an infilling algorithm for missing data. If this is done properly this is perfectly correct as far as I can tell. If Harry was ignorant of this process he might cynically but inaccurately refer to it as “making data up” especially as I detect a measure of arrogance in his writings.
You might disagree that data infilling is not a valid process, but it is not the same a fabricating data.
You don’t even know what the effect of the supposedly fabricated data was on the temperature trend. If it had no effect on the global temperature trend or made the warming trend less than otherwise what have you got?
To extrapolate from an ambiguous statement by Harry to all climate scientists is just too much of a stretch.
“You misunderstand.
My remarks were in defense of school teachers.
I suggested a plausible alternative interpretation of events that reflected less poorly on school teachers.
It was not a put down of anybody.
It was more than one line.”
———————————-
“School teachers” is not a term that can be used to quantify all teaches. Some are bad some good. It is not your responsibility to defend a man, who you don’t even know, what you don’t even know he taught at the expense of someone else you don’t know. If you want to make the case that our education system in the US is fine, try that one. My brother also happens to be married to a high school teacher.
I don’t believe you are intentionally malicious but I try not to insult someone unprovoked when I disagree with them. This is the kind of thing that has polluted blogs like climate.etc where you get reflexively attacked by people who scroll through all the comments and feel duty bound to launch an attack on every one who doesn’t see their point of view.
Now people have to scroll through dozens of comments that serve no purpose as to the content of the thread.