Like Ronald Bailey, many are asking if Climate Science can recover from the leaked HadCRUT emails.

Bailey does a good job of laying out the emails, he says little about the climate modeling programs. Basically, ANY number set you feed into many of them will produce a “hockey stick.” The same hockey stick for climate data, mens shirt sizes, or any other data set you choose. Others will “prove” an upward temperature trend – even if you key in the data with the oldest dates first and the latest dates last.

And, as I have said several times, the perpetrators are now denying everything. They have to. They have broken many US and UK laws, and face not only loss of tenure, loss of position, and loss of reputation, but criminal prosecution as well. And their only chance is to talk their way out of their self made noose.

I doubt that all the persuasion they can muster, along with all the money and media space the media and their patrons can provide will do them the slightest good. The language of the emails is too plain and their climate models are too obviously biased to admit of an innocent explanation.

Unfortunately, the scientific fraud perpetrated by the HadCRUT staff and their collaborators at other climate centers has put all science in a dubious light. People are already asking whether crop science can really improve yeilds – and whether CERN does science or is just another fraud.

My response to questions is pretty simple. Science not done in support of political agendas is probably sound. But how do you tell what science is not intended to support some patron’s political agenda?

But does my take matter? Probably not. For a scientists horrified take on ClimateGate, take a few minutes to read what a scientist thinks.


This entry was posted in SCIENCE AND POLITICS. Bookmark the permalink.