perfidy

While I was putting together some information for a gloating post on the collapse of the the whole Anthropomorphic Global Warming thingy, I found this calm and well organized bit that neatly outlines the whole thing in a sane and even tone.  Especially in light of the fact that the central figure in the AGW movement has admitted that there has been no statistically significant warming in the last fifteen years (a period that has seen ever more crazed claims of mounting disaster unless. we. act. right. now!) - this just lays it out:

On what grounds do we defer to scientists?

We defer to scientists on the grounds that their information is true.  They are using verifiable data.  They are using clear, repeatable processes.  Their theory/model predicts experimentally verifiable results.  They are using solidly agreed upon theory.  The proxy for solidly agreed upon theory is publication of (and citation count of) articles in science journals.  Finally, science is assumed to be done in a disinterested fashion.  Truth is more important than specific conclusions.  All of those things, we don't generally have time to check for ourselves, and it would take a lot of training to do so.  In AGW, all 5 reasons to defer to the scientists have broken down.

A.  On AGW, the data was not verifiable.  It was hidden data, that was not being released.  In the face of FOIA the data was not released.  Furthermore, ClimateGate emails say conclusively that there was a conspiracy to not release the data (which indicates fear of skeptics poking at it).  Furthermore, both Indian and Russian scientists/instrument techs have said that the data that the instruments gave have been manipulated in such a way as to provide the right conclusions.  Most recently, the line is that the dog ate the original data.  Conclusion: in the case of AGW, you cannot rely on the scientists for data.

B. On AGW, the processes were opaque.  First, the software was not released to the world.  And it was modeling software of the kind that we know (from experience with Macro) just doesn't work well in general.  When the software was released through the ClimateGate hack, we discovered that there was a very good reason that the software wasn't released: it sucks.  Feed in any data you like (the price of rice in china in the 15th century), and you'll get a hockey stick. Conclusion: in the case of AGW, you cannot rely on the scientists for process.

C.  On AGW, the theory and data don't line up ("Hide the decline").  Further, most predictions are effectively non-Popperian.  We can't verify.  Some of us would say that makes it not science.  Conclusion: in the case of AGW, you can't rely on the scientists for experimental verification.

D.  On AGW, the peer review process has been corrupted, as per the ClimateGate emails.  There was an active conspiracy to keep skeptical voices out of peer review process, and then active claims that "it's not peer reviewed science" against skeptics.  The peer review process for climate science is all the way broken.  Hence, there can be no supposition that peer-reviewed means good. Conclusion: in the case of AGW, you can' rely on the peer review process to converge upon true theory.

E.  On AGW, with all government grants going to climate alarmists, and 4 Trillion(!!!) Euros of green investment funds trying to find ways to make "green" investments more profitable, there is very little chance of disinterested science.  Furthermore, those of us who are suspicious of alarmism as per Mencken.

If you can't get funding for your current studies (or future studies) without coming to pro-AGW conclusions, somehow the AGW conclusions can be teased out of your data.

I'd like to hear what Al Gore was saying when the BBC interview with Phil Jones was released.  The entire global warming fiasco has been a perfect example of why science and government shouldn't sleep together, let alone get married.  They do not make a good couple, and their children are certain to be retarded.

But while you're waiting for me to get off my ass and write my own climate post, go and read the whole thing.  It's worth it.