Comments on: Royal Society of Chemistry backs 36,000 physicists in condemning Climategate http://www.climategate.com/royal-society-of-chemistry-backs-36000-physicists-in-condemning-climategate Anthropogenic Global Warming, history's biggest scam Fri, 12 Mar 2010 11:21:11 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: John Eyon http://www.climategate.com/royal-society-of-chemistry-backs-36000-physicists-in-condemning-climategate/comment-page-1#comment-7239 John Eyon Sun, 07 Mar 2010 04:40:27 +0000 http://www.climategate.com/?p=5982#comment-7239 Graham - I don't know how many times I need to post this: my thesis is that it is unfair for either side to claim the entire membership of a society as supporting a statement written by the society's representatives. I wasn't talking about "consensus" such as a vote on the larger AGW issue. Maybe this needs to be clarified: I am a skeptic regarding AGW and I know better than to believe that the consensus opinion of all scientists at any one moment settles a controversy. However... I am also skeptical of anti-AGW people using the same false practices that the AGW used -- such as presuming everyone who hasn't spoken up or cast a vote must be on "our" side. Graham –

I don’t know how many times I need to post this: my thesis is that it is unfair for either side to claim the entire membership of a society as supporting a statement written by the society’s representatives. I wasn’t talking about “consensus” such as a vote on the larger AGW issue.

Maybe this needs to be clarified: I am a skeptic regarding AGW and I know better than to believe that the consensus opinion of all scientists at any one moment settles a controversy.

However… I am also skeptical of anti-AGW people using the same false practices that the AGW used — such as presuming everyone who hasn’t spoken up or cast a vote must be on “our” side.

]]> By: Graham http://www.climategate.com/royal-society-of-chemistry-backs-36000-physicists-in-condemning-climategate/comment-page-1#comment-7189 Graham Sat, 06 Mar 2010 20:31:42 +0000 http://www.climategate.com/?p=5982#comment-7189 Well John, you've rather stepped on a trap of your own fabrication and raised the issue of what this scientific consensus is that we keep getting told about. Having said that, as others have proposed, scientific theories and postulations don't achieve credibility by show of hands. That's a political concept, not a scientific one. Galileo, is a famous example. He was in a minority of one. Which is why the data hiders of UEA CRU are in the dog house. Seeing the 'three wise monkeys' at the government inquiry was another blow to UK science in general. If they seek to bolster the UEA CRU by trying to suggest that all UK science is like this, then forget the Medieval Warm Period, we are submitting our science to the 'Dark Ages'. Well John, you’ve rather stepped on a trap of your own fabrication and raised the issue of what this scientific consensus is that we keep getting told about. Having said that, as others have proposed, scientific theories and postulations don’t achieve credibility by show of hands. That’s a political concept, not a scientific one. Galileo, is a famous example. He was in a minority of one. Which is why the data hiders of UEA CRU are in the dog house.

Seeing the ‘three wise monkeys’ at the government inquiry was another blow to UK science in general. If they seek to bolster the UEA CRU by trying to suggest that all UK science is like this, then forget the Medieval Warm Period, we are submitting our science to the ‘Dark Ages’.

]]> By: John O'Sullivan http://www.climategate.com/royal-society-of-chemistry-backs-36000-physicists-in-condemning-climategate/comment-page-1#comment-7188 John O'Sullivan Sat, 06 Mar 2010 20:26:53 +0000 http://www.climategate.com/?p=5982#comment-7188 John Eyon: "While Graham hints at outside pressure, it could as likely be the evidence that you and I are looking for — internal dissention." Yes, summed up neatly, I totally agree with you. John Eyon: “While Graham hints at outside pressure, it could as likely be the evidence that you and I are looking for — internal dissention.”
Yes, summed up neatly, I totally agree with you.

]]> By: John O'Sullivan http://www.climategate.com/royal-society-of-chemistry-backs-36000-physicists-in-condemning-climategate/comment-page-1#comment-7186 John O'Sullivan Sat, 06 Mar 2010 20:22:19 +0000 http://www.climategate.com/?p=5982#comment-7186 It does appear that despite the latest addendum from the IOP they retained the inescapably pertinent judgment about the Climategate scandal, which is "whether it was a misguided protection of their work or a malicious misrepresentation of data.” If there's no retraction of this damning assessment then it still holds. It does appear that despite the latest addendum from the IOP they retained the inescapably pertinent judgment about the Climategate scandal, which is “whether it was a misguided protection of their work or a malicious misrepresentation of data.” If there’s no retraction of this damning assessment then it still holds.

]]> By: John O'Sullivan http://www.climategate.com/royal-society-of-chemistry-backs-36000-physicists-in-condemning-climategate/comment-page-1#comment-7185 John O'Sullivan Sat, 06 Mar 2010 20:15:28 +0000 http://www.climategate.com/?p=5982#comment-7185 In the world of 'post normal' science consensus is king and no one is allowed to dissent while those who sing loudest from the hymn sheet receive the greatest accolades. That's the dystopia climatology seeks-ask Michael Mann and Phil Jones. Those scientists who do not conform to post normal models are not going to be funded. Thus, if we take this to its logical conclusion, if we do not defeat the post normalists' science then no other science will exist. In the world of ‘post normal’ science consensus is king and no one is allowed to dissent while those who sing loudest from the hymn sheet receive the greatest accolades. That’s the dystopia climatology seeks-ask Michael Mann and Phil Jones. Those scientists who do not conform to post normal models are not going to be funded. Thus, if we take this to its logical conclusion, if we do not defeat the post normalists’ science then no other science will exist.

]]> By: John Eyon http://www.climategate.com/royal-society-of-chemistry-backs-36000-physicists-in-condemning-climategate/comment-page-1#comment-7030 John Eyon Fri, 05 Mar 2010 21:27:14 +0000 http://www.climategate.com/?p=5982#comment-7030 John O -- You've finally found a point of agreement within the context of this thread. We can look for dissent. Finding no dissent one hour after the statement wouldn't be fair timeframe. I would argue a couple days doesn't make it "settled" either. That is probably moot, however. The IoP offered a "clarification" that promotes AGW. While Graham hints at outside pressure, it could as likely be the evidence that you and I are looking for -- internal dissention. John O –

You’ve finally found a point of agreement within the context of this thread. We can look for dissent. Finding no dissent one hour after the statement wouldn’t be fair timeframe. I would argue a couple days doesn’t make it “settled” either.

That is probably moot, however. The IoP offered a “clarification” that promotes AGW. While Graham hints at outside pressure, it could as likely be the evidence that you and I are looking for — internal dissention.

]]> By: John Eyon http://www.climategate.com/royal-society-of-chemistry-backs-36000-physicists-in-condemning-climategate/comment-page-1#comment-7015 John Eyon Fri, 05 Mar 2010 21:19:29 +0000 http://www.climategate.com/?p=5982#comment-7015 John O -- Believing that all the IoP scientists agree on honesty and integrity cannot substitute for the belief that all the IoP scientists agree with the condemnation of the CRU. John O –

Believing that all the IoP scientists agree on honesty and integrity cannot substitute for the belief that all the IoP scientists agree with the condemnation of the CRU.

]]> By: John O'Sullivan http://www.climategate.com/royal-society-of-chemistry-backs-36000-physicists-in-condemning-climategate/comment-page-1#comment-6888 John O'Sullivan Fri, 05 Mar 2010 19:20:00 +0000 http://www.climategate.com/?p=5982#comment-6888 John, the only way we can test if the members are arrayed behind the statement or not is if there is open dissent. Does anyone see any evidence of this? I can't. Surely no self-respecting scientist of conscience is going to condemn its leadership advocating "Access to reliable, up-to-date information" or for "Sharing information" which the IOP states is "especially important in multi-disciplinary research, where progress is very much dependent on willing and effective communication between different speciality areas." John, the only way we can test if the members are arrayed behind the statement or not is if there is open dissent. Does anyone see any evidence of this? I can’t. Surely no self-respecting scientist of conscience is going to condemn its leadership advocating “Access to reliable, up-to-date information” or for “Sharing information” which the IOP states is “especially important in multi-disciplinary research, where progress is very much dependent on willing and effective communication between different speciality areas.”

]]> By: John O'Sullivan http://www.climategate.com/royal-society-of-chemistry-backs-36000-physicists-in-condemning-climategate/comment-page-1#comment-6886 John O'Sullivan Fri, 05 Mar 2010 19:13:51 +0000 http://www.climategate.com/?p=5982#comment-6886 I think not. The IOP haven't in any way withdrawn its damning condemnation of junk science that so far has offered no verifiability. Correct methodology is everything - it is what the IOP argues for. Thus scientists generally are demanding climatologists clean up their act and abide by the essential principles of the science i.e transparency and replication of their methods so that results may be tested. I, like many others, argue if we had been given access to the meta data and methodologies to begin with we'd all know for sure, one way or the other whether Jones, Mann, etc. are either honorable scientists or downright frauds. As it stands justice, truth and science just have to wait a little longer. I think not. The IOP haven’t in any way withdrawn its damning condemnation of junk science that so far has offered no verifiability. Correct methodology is everything – it is what the IOP argues for. Thus scientists generally are demanding climatologists clean up their act and abide by the essential principles of the science i.e transparency and replication of their methods so that results may be tested. I, like many others, argue if we had been given access to the meta data and methodologies to begin with we’d all know for sure, one way or the other whether Jones, Mann, etc. are either honorable scientists or downright frauds. As it stands justice, truth and science just have to wait a little longer.

]]> By: John Eyon http://www.climategate.com/royal-society-of-chemistry-backs-36000-physicists-in-condemning-climategate/comment-page-1#comment-6772 John Eyon Thu, 04 Mar 2010 22:18:33 +0000 http://www.climategate.com/?p=5982#comment-6772 We're talking about different things. You're focusing on the substance of the statement. I'm focusing on the the implication that all the members are arrayed behind the statement. We’re talking about different things. You’re focusing on the substance of the statement. I’m focusing on the the implication that all the members are arrayed behind the statement.

]]>