March 02, 2010

Climate Change Cultists Don't Believe in Peer-Reviewed Science, Unless Reviewed By Like-Minded Believers

Two interesting ways of telling the same, sad story.

Via Breitbart:

A British climate researcher at the centre of a row over global warming science has admitted he wrote some "pretty awful" emails to sceptics when he was refusing their requests for data.

But Phil Jones, of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, defended Monday his decision not to release the data about temperatures from around the world, saying it was not "standard practice" to do so.

"I have obviously written some pretty awful emails," Jones told British lawmakers in response to a question about a message he sent to a sceptic in which he refused to release data saying he believed it would be misused.

And from the UK Daily Mail:

Giving evidence to a Science and Technology Committee inquiry, the Institute of Physics said: 'Unless the disclosed emails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research and for the credibility of the scientific method.

'The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital.'

Last month, the Information Commissioner ruled the CRU had broken Freedom of Information rules by refusing to hand over raw data.

But yesterday Professor Jones - in his first public appearance since the scandal broke - denied manipulating the figures.

Looking pale and clasping his shaking hands in front of him, he told MPs: 'I have obviously written some pretty awful emails.'

He admitted withholding data about global temperatures but said the information was publicly available from American websites.

And he claimed it was not 'standard practice' to release data and computer models so other scientists could check and challenge research.

Uh, how is that scientific method supposed to function again? This is from Wikipedia, but I think they still have this mostly correct (my emphasis below):

Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently-derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process be objective to reduce biased interpretations of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.

A core principle of the scientific method is the full-disclosure of all relevant documentation. Dr. Jones, along with many of his peers damned in the Climategate emails, have decided to completely abandon the scientific method for faith-based beliefs.

There seems to be very little separating climate change cultists from the evolutionists creationists they love to mock, except that they don't have the self-awareness to know their beliefs are based on faith.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at March 2, 2010 11:23 AM

There is a huge misunderstanding as well of the meaning that a paper has been peer-reviewed. All that really means in everyday terms (for research areas other than climate science) is that knowledgeable reviewers have vetted the paper for obvious mistakes and contravention of well-proven theories (which is why you will not see any papers on perpetual motion).

There is precious little implication of peer-review that a given paper is correct and accurate. Just that the paper doesn't make obvious errors or completely untenable claims.

Which is why Jones, Mann, Hansen and others perversion of the peer-review process is so heinous. By assuming that a research paper skeptical of the AGW hypothesis was ipso facto an obvious error--even though the AGW hypothesis was the point of the research paper--then Jones, et al could filter out from scientific publication any papers skeptical of the AGW research.

Posted by: iconoclast at March 2, 2010 04:37 PM

'There seems to be very little separating climate change cultists from the evolutionists they love to mock...' Did you mean 'creationists they love to mock'?

Posted by: RNB at March 2, 2010 07:28 PM