More ‘Scientific Fascism’ than ‘Scientific Progress’

In the wake of the ClimateGate revelations, and because the Democrats in charge refused GOP attempts to bring forth witnesses in this morning’s hearings, minority House republicans on Rep. Ed Markey’s Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming have asked for their own dedicated day of hearings to examine the evidence serving as the foundation of the assertion that mankind is responsible for climate change.

Following today’s hearing, Wisconsin Congressman James Sensenbrenner made the following statement:

Sound science policy depends on sound science. When the science itself is politicized, it becomes impossible to make objective political decisions. Scientific policy depends on absolute transparency. As policymakers, we should all be concerned when key climate scientists write in private correspondence that they found a “trick” to “hide the decline” in temperature data documented in climate studies.

Less than two weeks ago, some 160 megabits of data containing over 1,000 e-mail—including one from today’s witness, Dr. John Holdren—and 2,000 other documents from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the U.K. were posted on the Internet. While the emails don’t undermine everything we know about climate change, their contents are shocking, and, in the words of Clive Crook, senior editor of The Atlantic Monthly, a columnist for National Journal and a commentator for the Financial Times, “The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering.”

The temperature records from the Climate Research Unit are 1 of only 3 major datasets, which considerably overlap and which have been used as the bedrock for the assessments by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the United States Global Change Research Program. The dataset in question is the basis for virtually all peer-reviewed literature.

The documents show systemic suppression of dissenting opinion among scientists in the climate change community, intimidation of journal editors and journals that would deign to publish articles questioning the so-called “consensus,” manipulation of data and models, possible criminal activity to evade legitimate requests for data and underlying computer codes filed under Freedom of Information Acts—both U.S. and United Kingdom, and demonstrate that many climate scientists and proponents of climate legislation have vested interests.

Those with the most to gain from climate change have tried to dismiss these emails as out of context. It’s worth reading a few examples:

From Kevin Trenberth: The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data . . . shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

From Phil Jones: I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

From Andrew Manning: I’m in the process of trying to persuade Siemens Corp. . . .to donate me a little cash to do some CO2 measurments here in the UK – looking promising, so the last thing I need is news articles calling into question (again) observed temperature increases – I thought we’d moved the debate beyond this, but seems that these sceptics are real die-hards!!).

From Keith Briffa: I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same. I worried that you might think I gave the impression of not supporting you well enough while trying to report on the issues and uncertainties.

From Phil Jones: I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !

From Michael Mann: This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…

From Phil Jones: If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.

The e-mails show a pattern of suppression, manipulation and secrecy that was inspired by ideology, condescension and profit. They read more like scientific fascism than the scientific process. They betray economic and ideological agendas that are deaf to disconfirming evidence. Hopefully this scandal is the end of declarations that the “science is settled” and a beginning of a transparent scientific debate.

The seriousness of this issue justifies additional consideration. The majority did not permit the minority to invite a witness this morning. We are therefore requesting a minority day of hearings.

Share

Comments

  1. Robert Wallace says:

    Anonymous-

    I thought about addressing your point seriously until I got here: "Goldberg's ad hominem treatise based on a circular argument"

    Did you just Google "logical fallacies" and then throw a couple together?

    The worst thing that happened to philosophy was a horde of internet debaters thinking that if they scattered a few latin phrases in their arguments it would improve them. Sort of like salt, right? Just sprinkle a little bit to make anything better.

  2. Quentin Daniels says:

    Robert said: The worst thing that happened to philosophy was a horde of internet debaters thinking that if they scattered a few latin phrases in their arguments it would improve them. Sort of like salt, right? Just sprinkle a little bit to make anything better.

    I've always thought that if the food was good enough, you shouldn't need to add anything to it..

    Likewise, if the data were accurate enough, these scientific idiots would not have needed to embellish it to "prove" their point.

    We are discovering (hopefully not to late) that Mr. Gore and the IPCC have indeed built their house upon the sand of hypocrisy.

  3. LENN SAKATA says:

    ROBERT WALLACE,

    Perhaps you might then sharpen your smug sense of philosophical acumen by reviewing a list of logical fallacies yourself, namely "Red Herring: A diversionary tactic that avoids the key issues, often by avoiding opposing arguments rather than addressing them."

    IPSO FUCKU

  4. Robert Wallace says:

    Lenn,

    LOL!!! No, that's exactly *not* what I should do! The ole "let's throw the names of fallacies at each other until we're blue in the face" is what I'm trying to *avoid*!

    If you would like to start from scratch and make a serious attempt at a *real* argument, then we'll have something to talk about.

    But so far you've just switched the target of your juvenile tactics without actually changing the tactics, and I have no desire to join in.

    Thanks for the offer, though.

  5. FOR EYES ONLY says:

    I bet even Sandy Berger has some climate data documents stuffed in his tighty whiteys

  6. Anonymous says:

    Really? "Scientific Fascism"? The right has now misappropriated the concept of fascism to the point of applying it to anything that slightly smells of something that may contradict their base intuitions. From Goldberg's ad hominem treatise based on a circular argument to this meaningless (and illegal) set of emails. The rhetoric is filled with hasty generalizations based on completely insufficient and selectively biased evidence. Keep defending the status quo, you troglodytes, and you'll be boiled in your own worthless fat.

  7. JEFF SCHREIBER says:

    Okay, kids. Factual question time.

    1. Did East Anglica CRU release the original data, or only the data which had been adjusted for variables?

    2. Did East Anglica CRU release information as to how the data had been adjusted for variables, thus allowing scientists to recreate the adjustment and adjusted numbers on their own (a hallmark of responsible science)?

    3. Why do existing climate models completely fail to predict the known past? In other words, if the same models used by so-called climate experts don't work to predict known conditions, why should we bank our economy on those models and experts now?

    4. The Earth has been around for 4.5 billion years. Why do we think that now is the right time and temperature to maintain?

    5. What IS the right temperature for this planet?

    6. If man is causing global warming, why is Mars also getting warmer?

    Answer with facts, or don't answer at all. And, any more expletives, and your comments will never get through here again.

  8. TNelson says:

    I really don't know what sums this up better than this quote from Phil Jones: "If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn't being political, it is being selfish."

    Yep, In my view, that pretty much sums up the global warming theorists. I've seen it time and time again–they just want to be proven right. Science be damned. The fact that there is a ton of moolah involved as quoted by Andrew Manning is just icing on the cake! Selfish, self righteous b—tards, the vast majority.

    I wonder if scientists today would risk political or religious persecution for actually doing science, seeking truth for the sake of truth instead of bowing to an agenda? Uh….not these guys. Why is it so difficult for them to change course if the data shows something different than what human/computer models predicted? That is what science is! It seems that they are afraid of looking like fools (and they do), but if they had practiced real, good science, they never would have worked themselves into this corner, they would have merely been collecting data and presenting it exactly for what it was.

    Sorry Jeff, is b—tard really an expletive, or just a descriptive word, anyway?

  9. Doublee says:

    I agree wholeheartedly with the fellow who said this:

    “The truth is that promoting science isn’t just about providing resources—it’s about protecting free and open inquiry. It’s about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology. It’s about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it’s inconvenient—especially when it’s inconvenient. Because the highest purpose of science is the search for knowledge, truth and a greater understanding of the world around us. That will be my goal as President of the United States—and I could not have a better team to guide me in this work.”

    Yes, those words were uttered by President-elect Obama or were they "just words"?

  10. Dee says:

    Why is it when you disagree with the Left, they resort to name calling? They rarely are able to rationally discuss an issue with the opposite side.

  11. BIG BONG THEORISTS says:

    I miss real scientists like Einstein

    E=mc2

    Environment = media * coverup(squared)

    Verification word: distrust
    P R I C E L E S S

  12. Ian Thorpe says:

    I was a climate change campaigner 30 years ago. It is still obvious we have a huge problem and have to take action urgently.
    Arguing about what caused it will achieve nothing but is typical of scientists. To them everything is just and intellectual game.
    Aside from halting deforestation (not just rainforests but the northern pine and bircyh forests too) we need to be improving sea defences, preparing to plant different crops and getting used to the idea of obtaining meat from animals that can thrive on poor quality pastures.

    One of the bonuses of climate chasnge is the vast territories of Siberia and northern Canada will be rendered capable of producing crops.

    Oatcakes and barley bread anyone?

  13. YAWNNNNNNN says:

    oh please…..

  14. Anonymous says:

    Wow Jeff, seems some of your contributors don't see the fraud that is climate change in the same light as you do.

  15. THOSE BRITS says:

    Did Ian ever work at CRU?

  16. Robert Wallace says:

    I actually don't have a problem with "climate change". Obviously the climate changes. I only have a problem with the folks who think that humans obviously cause it, that we can predict it, that we can obviously change it, and that we ought to do everything possible to change it and damn the costs!

    Once you step away from the global-warming-as-religion mentality there's room for a serious, open-ended discussion about what is going on, what to expect for the future and what we should or shouldn't do about it.

  17. Gail B says:

    The fact remains–global warming holds the winning lottery ticket. A lot of people stand to make a LOT — and I mean A LOT — of money if legislation behind it is passed. It is a hoax, and a cruel one at that.

    Follow the money, folks!

Speak Your Mind

*