It's unanimous: "Climategate" a non-issue
Jul. 8th, 2010 08:56 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
snousleWe now have seen the release of the third of three independent investigations into "Climategate", and all three say the same thing: the CRU needs to be more open about their data, but the integrity of their research and their conclusions is not in doubt.
Personally, I think Phil Jones et al. have acted like doofuses, and their defensive attitude has played directly into the hands of their attackers. But in a community of several thousand researchers, you're always going to get doofuses; it's inevitable.
In the meanwhile, I came across an interesting page on Wikipedia that lists more than fifty scientific organizations that have issued statements supporting the conclusion that anthropogenic C02 is warming the planet. The number of organizations that reject this idea? Zero.
Anyone who, at this point, believes that global warming reflects a conspiracy among scientists is dismissing the judgment of the entire scientific community. The idea that there is any "controversy" among scientists on the central ideas of AGW, beyond a small number of individual dissenters, is simply false. Ten years ago, there was room for debate, but today, the rate at which individual professional scientists reject AGW outright is probably smaller than the number who believe they've been abducted by aliens. In other words, it's down to the lone crazies. Rejecting AGW today is to reject all of science. If one doesn't believe AGW, it would be logically inconsistent to grant any credibility to any scientific theory whatsoever.
Thoughtful conservatives have come to the same conclusion. Besides Jim Manzi, who I wrote about earlier, an essay by Ronald Bailey, a libertarian science columnist over at Reason, explains how he came to agree that AGW is real. His account illustrates the difference between honest skepticism and dishonest denialism; he considered the data that came to light over the past decade and revised his opinions accordingly.
It's amazing to see outright lies on this subject - things I know personally and directly to be false - not just treated as fact, but paraded around with pride by people who fancy themselves to be "independent thinkers" and superior in their judgment to, well, just about everyone. It neither surprises nor bothers me that people are misinformed about complicated matters, but their arrogance in holding on to and defending this misinformation is truly disturbing.
Personally, I think Phil Jones et al. have acted like doofuses, and their defensive attitude has played directly into the hands of their attackers. But in a community of several thousand researchers, you're always going to get doofuses; it's inevitable.
In the meanwhile, I came across an interesting page on Wikipedia that lists more than fifty scientific organizations that have issued statements supporting the conclusion that anthropogenic C02 is warming the planet. The number of organizations that reject this idea? Zero.
Anyone who, at this point, believes that global warming reflects a conspiracy among scientists is dismissing the judgment of the entire scientific community. The idea that there is any "controversy" among scientists on the central ideas of AGW, beyond a small number of individual dissenters, is simply false. Ten years ago, there was room for debate, but today, the rate at which individual professional scientists reject AGW outright is probably smaller than the number who believe they've been abducted by aliens. In other words, it's down to the lone crazies. Rejecting AGW today is to reject all of science. If one doesn't believe AGW, it would be logically inconsistent to grant any credibility to any scientific theory whatsoever.
Thoughtful conservatives have come to the same conclusion. Besides Jim Manzi, who I wrote about earlier, an essay by Ronald Bailey, a libertarian science columnist over at Reason, explains how he came to agree that AGW is real. His account illustrates the difference between honest skepticism and dishonest denialism; he considered the data that came to light over the past decade and revised his opinions accordingly.
It's amazing to see outright lies on this subject - things I know personally and directly to be false - not just treated as fact, but paraded around with pride by people who fancy themselves to be "independent thinkers" and superior in their judgment to, well, just about everyone. It neither surprises nor bothers me that people are misinformed about complicated matters, but their arrogance in holding on to and defending this misinformation is truly disturbing.
