More Settled Science: Can We Stop Calling it Settled Science Now?

The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.

Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers. 

Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

Here’s how settled science apparently works in 2010:

1. You make outlandish claims with no backing.
2. You falsify or “lose” data that proves that science wrong.
3. When questioned, you answer honestly because you know the true zealots will disregard whatever you say.

Climate change isn’t in question; anthropogenic global warming is.

Let’s be honest, though. That ship has sailed, and one of the main sources on which that settled science is based is no longer credible.

Enough with dismissing all disagreement in the name of settled science. If anything, over the past 12 months, we’ve figured out that, at the very least, that the consensus that has formed is based on very little if anything aside from people justifying their research grants and government funding.

Posted via Posterous

This entry was posted in From Posterous. Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://jeffandcarol.com/jeff Jeff Egnaczyk

    “Let’s be honest, though. That ship has sailed, and one of the main sources on which that settled science is based is no longer credible. “

    But, as your comment implies, it is in no way the only source. To say that all research into global warming is “making outlandish claims”, and “falsify[ing] data” is not fair.

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com Vinny

    Let's think about this honestly, though. If 1 year ago I told you that we'd find a major source of data supporting AGW to be not only wrong, but willingly falsified and covered up, you'd tell me I was just another kook co-conspirator. Now, we find out that not only is that true, but that the data was completely made up in order to further a conclusion that was already predetermined.

    Let me ask you a question: you wouldn't have believed it a year ago and now that it has happened, doesn't that at least sit in your mind as something we should think about before digesting any more data from similar sources?

    It does for me.

    And by the way, you know where I am on environmental issues; I just despise junk science being employed to scare people into acting hastily.