Well it's been a few days, now, but it doesn't look like the dust is going to settle any time soon in the blogosphere. Sceptics have been suspicious about the integrity of the data mesh being used to "prove" Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), otherwise known as man-made global warming, and the motivations behind the alarmism being perpetuated by so-called "global warming scientists".
I've spent quite a bit of time over the last few days, examining commented Fortran code used to create the data meshes and draw graph plots, and reading email exchanges between scientists at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (UEA CRU) and I must say I'm pretty sure, now, that something is seriously amiss.
Firstly, it seems that the data available to CRU scientists is poor in quality and is wholly inadequate for use to compute historical climate conditions, or subsequently project future climate conditions. The CRU's own programmer clearly documents this.
Secondly, the emails document clear intent to tamper with the scientific process of peer reviewing the science of AGW by actively pressuring scientific journals to reject papers by known sceptics, discussing using bullying tactics to manipulate coverage at the BBC's Weather (to keep Paul Hudson quiet) and silence questioning voices there, etc.
Thirdly, the emails document agreements between CRU scientists to delete email correspondence AND data, rather than submit to requests for them under the Freedom Of Information Act.
Relevant links:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pau ... ppened-to-global-wa.shtml
http://bishophill.squarespace. ... /climate-cuttings-33.html
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php
I'm interested to know how people feel about the leaked information, about the prospect of being car-taxed on what could possibly be sexed-up alarmism, and about the importance of scientific integrity, good science, bad science and the impact of the lure of grant money on scientific endeavours.
Has policy driven science, rather than science driven policy?
I've spent quite a bit of time over the last few days, examining commented Fortran code used to create the data meshes and draw graph plots, and reading email exchanges between scientists at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (UEA CRU) and I must say I'm pretty sure, now, that something is seriously amiss.
Firstly, it seems that the data available to CRU scientists is poor in quality and is wholly inadequate for use to compute historical climate conditions, or subsequently project future climate conditions. The CRU's own programmer clearly documents this.
Secondly, the emails document clear intent to tamper with the scientific process of peer reviewing the science of AGW by actively pressuring scientific journals to reject papers by known sceptics, discussing using bullying tactics to manipulate coverage at the BBC's Weather (to keep Paul Hudson quiet) and silence questioning voices there, etc.
Thirdly, the emails document agreements between CRU scientists to delete email correspondence AND data, rather than submit to requests for them under the Freedom Of Information Act.
Relevant links:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pau ... ppened-to-global-wa.shtml
http://bishophill.squarespace. ... /climate-cuttings-33.html
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php
I'm interested to know how people feel about the leaked information, about the prospect of being car-taxed on what could possibly be sexed-up alarmism, and about the importance of scientific integrity, good science, bad science and the impact of the lure of grant money on scientific endeavours.
Has policy driven science, rather than science driven policy?