While the WSJ reports actual conversations, the NYT reports its own impressions and twists.
Read them for yourself, here and here.
Wrapping up the NYT article is an amazing set of paragraphs:
"Mike Hulme, a climate scientist at the University of East Anglia and author of “Why We Disagree About Climate Change,” said the disclosures could offer a chance to finally bring the practices of climate researchers and the intergovernmental panel into the modern era, where transparency — enforced legally or illegally — is inevitable and appropriate.
“The I.P.C.C. itself, through its structural tendency to politicize climate change science, has perhaps helped to foster a more authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production,” he said in an e-mail message, “just at a time when a globalizing and wired cosmopolitan culture is demanding of science something much more open and inclusive.”
"Dr. Curry and others said that if nothing else, the e-mail correspondence suggested that climate scientists needed to show more temperance in dealing with their critics.
“We won the war — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, and climate and energy legislation is near the top of the U.S. agenda,” Dr. Curry said. “Why keep fighting all these silly battles and putting ourselves in this position?"
To claim that, "a globalizing and wired cosmopolitan culture is demanding of science something much more open and inclusive” is the reason for opening scientific data for replication and verification is not just absurd. It is indicative of the arrogance of scientists involved in this caper. If it is not open, not replicable, not verifiable, it is not science. Any "scientist" who says otherwise is a fraud.
And a caper it is: "We won the war"... Just when does an endeavor turn from objective science into a "war"? Just a guess: when a leftist agenda and huge funding to the scientist/criminals converge on a political scheme.
No comments:
Post a Comment