Comments on: UK Parliamentary Hearings Today

By: Bryan Sweeney

Bryan Sweeney — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 09:34:29 +0000

The most worrying part of the proceedings was when Jones admitted that no one from the AGW proponent scientist viewpoint asked him for any evidence to back his conclusions.
They just took his word for it -that’s “standard scientific practice”.
The worlds economy dislocated because his friends are too lazy or complacent to bother examining the data on which this pack of cards is built.

By: Sean

Sean — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 20:07:06 +0000

This to me is the essential conundrum for Jones. If the source of the data is completely different for all three, then his raw data has NOT been released, but he could reasonably claim that the three independently support one another.

However, if the source for all three is basically the same and they differ only in their PROCESSING of the data, then the independence would only be significant if the processing is significant, which would mean that we should see it and understand it.

Or, the last possibility is that the source is the same and the processing is light and relatively unimportant, so basically the similarity of the three series is just a result of three groups doing the same easy task and not making any significant mistakes.

This would cover both the independence and (to some extent) the disclosure issue, but would make you question why CRU needed all that funding. Since they will never want anyone to travel down this line of reasoning you will always see a well-choreographed dance around alternatives 1 and 2 above.

By: Richard Drake

Richard Drake — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 17:46:19 +0000

Yep, all true. And yet ... 'A Miracle Just Happened'. I think it was said the best that very first time.

By: Area Man

Area Man — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 16:37:16 +0000

Re: Richard Drake (Mar 2 11:22), Well, the original point was that Global Warming Hysteria may not have gotten off the ground if Feynman had been alive in the 90's. I think it's a good point. That doesn't take anything away from those currently working hard to promote the truth, but clearly Global Warming Hysteria DID get off the ground. Not sure exactly what the problem is with the stated opinion on Feynman's chances of thwarting GWH had he been alive. OT anyway.

By: Richard Drake

Richard Drake — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 16:22:22 +0000

The only practical problem with such exalted views of Feynman is that he’s dead, a state from which he himself would not expect to influence proceedings! Making him out to be that unique can subtly imply we stand less chance of dealing with the junk science of our day than he did in his. But I don’t think that’s true at all. We’ve been given Dyson, at least for a season. We’ve been given Lindzen and Christy and McIntyre. And it’s not as if Steve is claiming to be a great scientist (though he loves his maths). He’s just got courage and integrity. And that’s all any of us needs. We don’t need Feynman to hold our hand – as he would be the first to say.

By: Tom C

Tom C — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 16:20:57 +0000

While much to be hoped for, I would not assume this to be true. Probably lots more thimbles to hide this pea under, though it will get harder to do so.

By: Area Man

Area Man — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 15:59:56 +0000

Re: Area Man (Mar 2 09:55), Understood and appreciated, Steve. At the risk of sounding sycophantic, your willingness to continue to engage with Tom P., and even to thank him when appropriate, is a refreshing example (one of very few out there) of what it means to be gentleman and a scholar. It's an example others would do well to understand.

By: Area Man

Area Man — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 15:44:50 +0000

The great thing about Feynman was the fact that he was very effective at pointing out BS to a very wide dynamic range of audiences. True, he had the credentials and stature scientifically, but his plainspoken nature allowed him to communicate effectively and convincingly to laypeople who may not even be aware of his reputation.

Couple that with a disdain for authority and one of history’s finest BS detector, and you have a guy who could have stopped Gore in his tracks and saved countless kids from having to be bombarded by propoganda.

By: Erasmus de Frigid

Erasmus de Frigid — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 15:28:35 +0000

Quentin Letts from the Daily Mail:

“Jones was accompanied by his university’s vice-chancellor, Professor Edward Acton, who provided much-needed comic relief. Professor Acton, a younger version of Professor Calculus from the Tintin books, beamed and nodded at everything Professor Jones said. ‘I think that answer was spot-on,’ he cried, after listening to one response from the terror-stricken Jones. “

By: Navy Bob

Navy Bob — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 15:19:05 +0000

Haven’t seen the Charlie Brooker piece, but I think the main reason for the change you’ve observed in the meta-narrative is that the emails gave journalists something they could finally understand: lying, coverups, destruction of damning secrets. Yes, all the scientific malfeasance has been known for years by those who took the time to follow it, but journalists don’t have the technical ability, interest or patience to understand such things, and their inherent political bias predisposed them to parrot the party line. But now they’ve smelled traditional blood in the water, and their basic journalistic instincts have taken control.