Slashdot Mirror
Climate Researchers Fight Back
tomduck writes "The Guardian reports that climate researcher Andrew Weaver is suing the National Post newspaper in Canada in a libel action for publishing 'grossly irresponsible falsehoods.' The Post claimed he cherrypicked data to support his climate research, and tried to blame the 'evil fossil fuel' industry for break-ins at his office in 2008 to divert attention from mistakes in the 2007 IPCC report. This comes fast on the heels of another Guardian article describing lessons learned from the exoneration of UEA scientists involved in the so-called Climategate affair. Are climate scientists finally fighting back against their critics, who they were previously more inclined to ignore?"
i consider removing data points because they don't fit the proposed model as lying.
The national post are already bankrupt, so whatever they have to pay out will come from their backers - the oil industry - which means we'll all pay for this needless dalliance with truth and justice. Look at how much the oil industry have had to pay to take over governments, dismiss science, and promote "the responsible truth as it pertains to the maintenance of oil industry profits". It's not like they dig this money of the ground - they extract it from you and I. The longer you resist, the more you will suffer.
The worst part about this manipulation of language is that you cannot have a debate with these people because their bias is tightly ingrained into their language. E.g
me: The evidence for human-influenced climate change looks interesting.
other: It probably came from a liberal source. Where do you get your 'facts'; here subscribe to my sources.
The insidiousness of this, is that the manipulation of language has shut down their cognitive thought process. The argument is over before it began because it doesn't coincide with their pre-established views. Climate analysis is no longer a science, but a politically charged war for natural resources and the large sums of money that are involved.
No, like crappy software and the fact that they can't reproduce the same results with their data. I would say that's kind of a big deal. But I'm just one of those idiot skeptics right?
First off, they changed the name to sway peoples opinions, that's not science, that's politics. Second, it is not logical to look at one complex system and say we can't go more then a week out, and then look at another infinitely more complex system and say we can go 100 years out. I understand that climatology and meteorology are not the same. The main difference is meteorology looks at the short term and climatology looks at the long term of the same thing - weather patterns. And since all current data that Climatologists are getting is the same as the meteorologists, they should both have the same error in their data, and since the climatologists go further into the future, that error would be propagated much more. So maybe instead of coming out and saying this is what is happening to the planet, they would find out if their data is good enough to use, but they didn't, they released their findings using said tree ring data without knowing for sure if it was ok to use, that is not science. You don't use data for scientific conclusions unless you know its good data, not it might be good data.
You just repeat what you've said before. Let me ask this : do you seriously believe universities have a pro free-market bias ? It seems to me baffling anyone seriously believes that actually.
Allow me to point to this idiotic racist outrage to prove just how far leftist bias in universities go :
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1968042,00.html