Saturday, November 28, 2009
"Climategate" Observations
Having spent several hours over the last week or so reading about, and excerpts from, the disclosed emails and other documents from East Anglia University Climate Research Unit's archives, I have come to believe beyond doubt two things:
1. "Peer review" doesn't mean squat when the author of the paper being reviewed and the reviewers are all members of the same club, especially when they act in concert to prevent "heretical" work from being published.
2. It is impossible to adequately critique a scientific theory that purports to interpret real-world data unless both the data and the methods used to analyze it are made publicly available to the science community at large, and any scientist or group of scientists who insist on secrecy about their data and methods after publication are probably not being honest.
It appears to me that the CRU group and their intellectual allies have about the same attitude towards real science that the Catholic Church did in the time of Galileo. The Church suppressed knowledge that it regarded as a threat to revealed truth as the Church understood it, and these climate guys were (and probably still are) doing the same thing.
I remain an agnostic about anthropogenic global warming, and this disclosure of shoddy practice doesn't make it any more likely that I will wind up in the pro-AGW camp. I am certain that the world should not be spending any money in an attempt to slow, stop or reverse any measured global warming until more honest research is done in the full light of day. If anything is to be done at this point, it should be to fund that research through some governing body that has no axe to grind (if such an entity can be found or created) and to devise ways to improve the lot of those most likely to be affected by climate change. Above all, the science must be separated from politics.
(0) comments
1. "Peer review" doesn't mean squat when the author of the paper being reviewed and the reviewers are all members of the same club, especially when they act in concert to prevent "heretical" work from being published.
2. It is impossible to adequately critique a scientific theory that purports to interpret real-world data unless both the data and the methods used to analyze it are made publicly available to the science community at large, and any scientist or group of scientists who insist on secrecy about their data and methods after publication are probably not being honest.
It appears to me that the CRU group and their intellectual allies have about the same attitude towards real science that the Catholic Church did in the time of Galileo. The Church suppressed knowledge that it regarded as a threat to revealed truth as the Church understood it, and these climate guys were (and probably still are) doing the same thing.
I remain an agnostic about anthropogenic global warming, and this disclosure of shoddy practice doesn't make it any more likely that I will wind up in the pro-AGW camp. I am certain that the world should not be spending any money in an attempt to slow, stop or reverse any measured global warming until more honest research is done in the full light of day. If anything is to be done at this point, it should be to fund that research through some governing body that has no axe to grind (if such an entity can be found or created) and to devise ways to improve the lot of those most likely to be affected by climate change. Above all, the science must be separated from politics.
Labels: Environmentalism, Global warming, Science
Friday, September 04, 2009
Van Jones
Lots of to-do lately about the checkered past of Van Jones, the Prez's Green Jobs czar. First he admitted to being a communist, then he called Repubs a**holes, then he railed against white polluters and white environmentalists for directing the poison to minority neighborhoods. In the last couple of days it came out that he signed the 'truther" petition asking for an investigation whether the attacks of September 11, 1991 were an "inside job." (All of the above facts appear in the Wikipedia article on Mr. Jones, which bears a disclaimer that the neutrality of the article is disputed, so you might not see what I saw if you visit that page.)
Now Jones has issued one of those "politician special" non-apology apologies--you know, the kind where he says "I'm sorry if I offended anyone" without admitting doing anything wrong. He also says he does not now and never did agree with the truthers' claims. Query: why, then, did he sign the petition? Mr. Jones' office has issued a statement to the effect that he didn't review the document carefully before signing. I call bushwa--whether he read it or not, he certainly knew its tenor and purpose at the time. Was he lying then or is he lying now?
I for one do not accept so-called "apologies" that are really insults in disguise; i.e., "I'm right and you're wrong but if you're too stupid to see that then I didn't mean to hurt your feelings while trying to educate you." I further believe that the statements Mr. Jones made before becoming a part of the Obama administration more truly demonstrate his real thinking than the measured, massaged and vetted comments that he makes now. Accordingly, I believe Mr. Jones is a racist, radical communist who wants to overturn the capitalist system that the United States has done so well by these last 220 years and replace it with something he calls the "Green Collar Economy" that pretty much has the government running everything. I don't want a guy like that advising any president.
Assuming the facts are true (and some undoubtedly are, as they appear in video clips available on YouTube in which you can see and hear Jones speak), then either the Obama administration did a really crappy job of vetting this guy before bringing him aboard, or they knew about all of this stuff and made a conscious decision that it didn't matter. Either way, in my view it doesn't reflect well on the Obama administration.
You're judged by the company you keep, Mr. President. Better keep that in mind.
(0) comments
Now Jones has issued one of those "politician special" non-apology apologies--you know, the kind where he says "I'm sorry if I offended anyone" without admitting doing anything wrong. He also says he does not now and never did agree with the truthers' claims. Query: why, then, did he sign the petition? Mr. Jones' office has issued a statement to the effect that he didn't review the document carefully before signing. I call bushwa--whether he read it or not, he certainly knew its tenor and purpose at the time. Was he lying then or is he lying now?
I for one do not accept so-called "apologies" that are really insults in disguise; i.e., "I'm right and you're wrong but if you're too stupid to see that then I didn't mean to hurt your feelings while trying to educate you." I further believe that the statements Mr. Jones made before becoming a part of the Obama administration more truly demonstrate his real thinking than the measured, massaged and vetted comments that he makes now. Accordingly, I believe Mr. Jones is a racist, radical communist who wants to overturn the capitalist system that the United States has done so well by these last 220 years and replace it with something he calls the "Green Collar Economy" that pretty much has the government running everything. I don't want a guy like that advising any president.
Assuming the facts are true (and some undoubtedly are, as they appear in video clips available on YouTube in which you can see and hear Jones speak), then either the Obama administration did a really crappy job of vetting this guy before bringing him aboard, or they knew about all of this stuff and made a conscious decision that it didn't matter. Either way, in my view it doesn't reflect well on the Obama administration.
You're judged by the company you keep, Mr. President. Better keep that in mind.
Labels: Czars, Economy, Environmentalism, Obama, politics, weasel words
Monday, May 11, 2009
Turn the US into Haiti?
I've been saying that Mr. Obama wants to turn the United States into pre-Thatcher UK, but apparently I've been misinformed.
Actually, he wants to turn the United States into Haiti.
(0) comments
Actually, he wants to turn the United States into Haiti.
Labels: Economy, Environmentalism, Obama, Regulation, Tax policy
Friday, October 03, 2008
Environmentalists Oppose Solar Power
Back in June I posted on this issue.
Now Instapundit points to another story ( via Futurepundit) about conservationists trying to block solar energy projects in the Mojave Desert.
Yet another example of how the only energy technologies acceptable to the environmentalists are the ones that aren't being used.
(0) comments
Now Instapundit points to another story ( via Futurepundit) about conservationists trying to block solar energy projects in the Mojave Desert.
Yet another example of how the only energy technologies acceptable to the environmentalists are the ones that aren't being used.
Labels: California, Energy, Environmentalism, Solar
