Wednesday, December 02, 2009

The Death of Trust.

Some time ago I wrote that our culture has entered a "post-scientific age" largely due to the hubris of scientists themselves, who claimed to understand processes they didn't, claimed things were harmful that are perfectly safe, claimed things were safe that are deadly, and generally tarred and feathered any opinion that differed from the then-current party line, regardless of how accurate it later turned out to be. The "scientific" community has a habit of censorship and an inquisition that would make Torquemada proud. People no longer trust science, and once again a group of scientists have proved themselves untrustworthy.

(Rabbis, of course, have used the same tactics - deride and ridicule all who challenge their ridiculous chumras and stringencies and claim such opposition has no halachic or historical validity, when everyone can look at pictures, hear the first-hand accounts and read the diaries and other historical documents concerning their parents and grandparents and great-grandparents and clearly see otherwise. Therefore they have, similarly, completely lost their credibility - a move that will destroy the average person's faith in Judaism just as surely as the wider culture's faith in science is being destroyed by lies "for their own good.")

Global Research Online
Call For Independent Inquiry Into Climategate as Global Warming Fraud Implodes
by Paul Joseph Watson
Global Research, December 2, 2009
Prison Planet - 2009-11-23

Calls for an independent inquiry into what is being dubbed “Climategate” are growing as the foundation for man-made global warming implodes following the release of emails which prove researchers colluded to manipulate data in order to “hide the decline” in global temperatures...

...The hacked documents and communications reveal how top scientists conspired to falsify data in the face of declining global temperatures in order to prop up the premise that man-made factors are driving climate change. Others illustrate how they embarked on a venomous and coordinated campaign to ostracize climate skeptics and use their influence to keep dissenting reports from appearing in peer-reviewed journals, as well as using cronyism to avoid compliance with Freedom of Information Act requests.

...“One of the emails under scrutiny, written by Phil Jones, the centre’s director, in 1999, reads: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline,” reports the London Telegraph.

The author admitted to the Associated Press that the e mail was genuine.

In another example, researchers discuss data that is “artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures”. Apparently, the “real temperatures” are whatever global warming cheerleaders want them to be...

...As Anthony Watts writes, attempts to claim e mails are “out of context,” as the defense has been from CRU, cannot apply in this instance.

You can claim an email you wrote years ago isn’t accurate saying it was “taken out of context”, but a programmer making notes in the code does so that he/she can document what the code is actually doing at that stage, so that anyone who looks at it later can figure out why this function doesn’t plot past 1960. In this case, it is not allowing all of the temperature data to be plotted. Growing season data (summer months when the new tree rings are formed) past 1960 is thrown out because “these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures”, which implies some post processing routine.

Spin that, spin it to the moon if you want. I’ll believe programmer notes over the word of somebody who stands to gain from suggesting there’s nothing “untowards” about it.

Either the data tells the story of nature or it does not. Data that has been “artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures” is false data, yielding a false result.

Another email discusses changing temperature data to fix “blips” in studies so as to make them conform with expectations, which of course is the cardinal sin of scientific research.

“Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organized resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more” was revealed in the 61 megabites of confidential files released on the Internet for anyone to read, writes Andrew Bolt...

...Scientists discuss trying to disguise historical data that contradicts the man-made climate change thesis, such as the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), which must be ‘contained’ according to one email.

Suppression of evidence is also discussed, with scientists resolving to delete embarrassing emails.

“And, perhaps most reprehensibly,” writes James Delingpole, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.”

...Scientists also “discussed ways of dodging Freedom of Information Act requests to release temperature data,” reports the Daily Mail.

The emails show that scientists relied on cronyism and cosying up to FOIA officials to prevent them from being forced to release data.

“When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the requests,’ the email says. “It took a couple of half-hour sessions to convince them otherwise.”

...It is important to stress that this compendium merely scratches the surface of the monumental levels of fraud that have been exposed as a result of the hacked emails.

...Many more revelations will be forthcoming as a result of this leak, and the desperate effort on behalf of the establishment to whitewash the whole issue will only end up making the damage worse.

[UPDATE: Another good article on "climategate" can be found here.

Fun with user comments, from the American Thinker article:
Posted by: CraigZ Nov 25, 12:40 AM
You can conduct an interesting experiment in asking someone their reaction to “Climategate”. If their reaction is defensive and anger at the hacker, you have the standard liberal ideologue who is emulating a religious Inquisitor rooting out heresy. If the reaction is outrage and anger at the perpetrators, you have a supporter in the principles of the scientific method. Mention this to your favorite liberal ideologue and stand back.


It's a shame that real science in physics, cosmology, mathematics, and other areas of great interest to religious philosophers will be painted with the same black brush as these enviro-wackos, but that's exactly what will happen - the same way that Chereidi Ravs are giving Judaism in general a bad name with their numerous bans, scandals of every sort, and insistence that absurdities like mermaids and mice spontaneously generating from dust balls are really God's word.

Attempting to manipulate data, history, or halacha "for their own good" is simply a holier-than-thou way of telling lies, no matter who is doing it. Such lies do not help anyone's cause, they only hurt. And telling themselves the lies over and over again has only made the enviro-wacks and the Ravs believe their own horse-pucky. It's a form of mental illness, of course, to tell yourself a lie for so long that you believe it, and to teach it to the next generation as truth even in the fact of contrary evidence - you only end up with a generation that either 1) can't deal with reality or 2) completely rejects you because you are obviously lying. Neither of these goes to a good place, class.

There are plenty of good reasons to reduce petrochemical usage of all types without resorting to lies about the climate, just as there are plenty of good reasons to have faith in God and the Torah in spite of fundamentalist wackos who insist on interpreting everything literally and using story-telling to augment the real data and exaggerate (to put it politely). Like the scientists who are doing the same thing, the Ravs who do this have lost all credibility.

The Death of Truth has led directly to the Death of Trust. And a society that can no longer accept either religious or scientific authority is a society ripe for picking by an -ism that will hate both. We don't want to go there, class - yet we are, full speed ahead.

No comments: