On Newnight last night I watched Professor Bob Watson of the University of East Anglia try desperately hard to brush off the use of certain vocabulary in the 'hacked' documents and emails as "loose" and "clearly scientists need to make better use of the English language when expressing opinions."
Dr Fred Singer, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia and a former director of the US Weather Satellite Service, was also a guest. He expressed his disappointment at the manner with which UEA tried to desist FOI inquiries and why they refused to permit other scientific organisations to view their collected data.
Both men agreed there should be an inquiry into the matter although Professor Singer insisted that UEA does not behave as most other environmental agencies who have studied climate change. He suggested UEA should become much more transparent and open to close scrutiny.
Some of the content of these documents gives grist to the mill of sceptics like me who believe in climate change but also believe around 98% of it is through natural processes. I too would like to see an inquiry along with UEA's data shared with other environmental science bodies.
If Professor Watson's body language was anything to go by last night, UEA's attempt to defuse the situation backfired. Badly.
Here's a rather good site which looks more closely at the numbers and was easy (for me) to understand. DK and LegIron have also been contributing to the exposure of the UEA data.
Daniel Korski in his Coffee House blog asks the question 'Is the world cooling or not - and what is to blame?'
Posts
13 comments:
"clearly scientists need to make better use of the English language when expressing opinions."
Like bloody Labour, less spin and secrecy and more openess would be refreshing.
Will it? Won't it?
Who the Hell knows.
So here's my opinion. It doesn't make sense to crap in your own nest but equally it doesn't make sense to exist in sackcloth and porridge.
Take the common sense approach. Do what you can, but above all make sure the real polluters, the commercial freedom whingers are forced to do all that needs to be done paid for out of their own pockets.
The gullible consumers of this world really need to start flexing their muscle power.
SR, I've learned that scientists are as easily bought as anyone, and a scientist's view, even on his own specialism, is not necessarily to be trusted. I tend to believe the AGW scenario, but let's agree to disagree on that. What's needed is way of checking the affiliations of those behind the various 'paradigms' of the moment. I have a list of news links in my browser, but the first four are these - a sort of Who's Who of the main pundits, as an aid to deciding on how objective (or otherwise) they might be:-
Sourcewatch
LobbyWatch
SpinWatch
GMWatch
For example, you may remember the letter sent out by scientists saying that independence would damage funding for research in Scottish universities. A quick look at GMWatch revealed that almost all of the signatories were involved in the biosciences - heavily funded by big pharma and agribusiness, and standing to lose a lot by the SNP's (entirely proper) opposition to GM crops. GMwatch also contains a useful list of 'scientific' organisations which are actually fronts for various vested interests (including the Labour Party).
I suppose these various 'watch' sites ought to have one of their own - WatchWatch - nobody is completely beyond bias!
As you say, climate change happens, whether or not we have much to do with it. So will the Atlantic Isles be filled with vinyards, or with ice?
Dream on OR, dream on. I'll send you a wee story later.
Exactly Crinkly. We now have homes in which the kitchens are mini recycling units and where people are afraid to heat their homes, not only because of the cost, but they feel guilty because they've been brainwashed into thinking if they do they will kill the rest of the earth.
Vronsky as always a splendid comment and thank you so much for these important links.
Did you read the link I gave written in 2003 long before this all became the latest political money-spinner? (That the one which I found easy to understand).
Of course nobody is beyond bias, societies would never grow or improve without it, but in today's world so many forget that people like us have information at the flick of a power button.
Oh Demetrius, I really don't know. The Europarks haven't as yet announced any differences in their climates have they?
I know this November has been very wet compared with the last few years when it was very cold and slightly wet. A saving on heating bills at this time of year.
Myself I'll plum for my usual planting. No rush to plant a vineyard as yet, although there is a very successful one not far away: Cairn O' Mohr. (I can't do links for some reason).
As Vronsky says OR many scientists are in the pay of a global corporation.
If we look back in history how many who were made genuine discoveries?
The scientists who have contributed most to the world are those who fought against such sponsored work. Unfortunately few achieved any financial rewards or accolades until they were dead.
The email in which one from the UEA implies he's heartened because a 'dissenter' has died is sickening.
A lot of people for years have thought the data was fiddled, now we have proof, a lot of scientists have used data which was fiddled. The saying is; garbage in, garbage out. None of their pronouncements on AGW are now credible .
D.
The problem now is though Apogee, that too many have large vested interests in this so they can't allow the truth to become the real story. They need this tax from all of us. It's all about money and greed of course.
Haven't seen much about the Met Office/Hadley/CRU claim that the reason they could not release the raw data to third parties was because they did not know who owned the intellectual property rights to it; likely story.
No you're right there banned. Pathetic the prof from UEA's use of that as an excuse.
Post a Comment