Slashdot Mirror

It will be a while before the digging into the data can begin and folks can confirm the results but based on previous efforts, my guess is that the "record" will be seriously skewed. It used to be that in the world of climate getting accurate measurements and letting the data speak for itself was derigeur. More and more (especially in climatology) the process seeems to be to massage the data to ensure that it conforms to a preconcieved theory. That's confirmation bias, not science. For some history of this sort of manipulation with examples.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/data-tampering-at-ushcngiss/

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/8/11/nasa-rewrites-the-past.html

http://climateaudit.org/2008/04/06/rewriting-history-time-and-time-again/

For the itellectually uncurious, the links will be ignored, and what's presented there shrugged off as akin to Holocaust denial. And in this way Science becomes a religious crusade instead of a methodology used to understand the natural world. Eisenhower's warnings are still spot on ~50 years later.

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/5/17/cooks-unreported-finding.html

I am an environmentalist and founder member of the Greens but I bow my head in shame at the thought that our original good intentions should have been so misunderstood and misapplied. We never intended a fundamentalist Green movement that rejected all energy sources other than renewable, nor did we expect the Greens to cast aside our priceless ecological heritage because of their failure to understand that the needs of the Earth are not separable from human needs. We need take care that the spinning windmills do not become like the statues on Easter Island, monuments of a failed civilisation. Statement for the Torridge District Co, James Lovelock

The sad part is what the billions that have been squandered at the Alter of Apocalyptic Global Warming could have done if spent wisely on real ecological problems.

I would suggest it all started with Al Gore and Global Warming

He was the first to use Science as a cudgel against his political foes and advance his political agenda. He's the one that put Science in the fight.

That was then later compounded by the outrageous catastrophic predictions (sure...say they didn't "predict", but the words came out of their mouths and they didn't object when others took those words for a prediction) that didn't pan out. Isn't Florida supposed to be underwater by now?

Then the whole Climategate thing that showed the primary movers of AGW to be complete jerks and thoroughly unlikeable people.

And there's jerks like you who claim that anyone who dare look askance at your work are "anti-intellectual" are are too stupid to sort out what to trust in a scientific publication (are you saying that scientific publications, Nature, et. al. have untrustworthy material in it?)

Of course, equating people who don't drink your Kool Aid to those who deny the Holocaust really helps your cause to be seen as our nights in shining armor.

How about scientists climb down off their high horses, admit mistakes instead of trying to cover them up, and stop being pedantic, obnoxious jerks?

Positive Bias is another word for Group Think. I guess it could also mean deception

Replying so parent gets noticed despite a downmod 'Overrated' from score zero.
Please read the link as the behavior it exposes is highly relevant to the article.

Positive Bias is another word for Group Think. I guess it could also mean deception

Well, would you like to judge people based on the amount of money they get from where, or would you like to think about this in a scientific way?

Frankly, it seems like in the battle between Big Oil and Big Government, the money is overwhelmingly on the warmist side:

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/6/16/ideological-money-laundering.html