Denialist Agenda (Part 5): Who’s defending science?

6 thoughts on “Denialist Agenda (Part 5): Who’s defending science?”

  1. Ove,
    Have you read through any of the submissions to the UK Parliamentary inquiry into the CRU email scandal? Here’s an interesting one from the Institute of Physics that might interest. I guess your friend Clive Hamilton would say they are part of the global conspiracy of bad bloggers funded by bad oil.

    Memorandum submitted by the Institute of Physics (CRU 39)

    The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

    1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.

    2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself – most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change.

    more at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm

    Like

    1. And hence the need for conducting careful objective and transparent enquiry (as UEA is doing ) to either verify these claims and concerns, or to satisfy everyone that they are unfounded.

      Like

  2. MarcH you might yourself, rather than suggesting what Clive would say, look into the Institute of Physics and who they are (“a scientific charity devoted to increasing the practice, understanding and application of physics”). The submission looks like denier talking points, not any kind of independent dispassionate consideration of the evidence.

    These kinds of petitions/submissions have become highly developed as a denier tool. Don’t believe everything you read.

    Like

  3. Just read the mcintyre.pdf. It is full of holes that you could drive a bus through. You have to ask the question, why are we wasting valuable time responding to this sort of stuff time and time again?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s