Remember Climategate? What an Absolute Pile of Dung

posted by gatekeeper50 02/25/2011 01:15:36 PM PST

The US government’s biggest critic of global warming is Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, the top Republican on the environment committee, who has called global warming “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.” The investigation was conducted by the inspector general of the Commerce Department. It reviewed the 1,073 leaked messages, particularly the 289 that were exchanged with NOAA scientists, and interviewed NOAA chief Jane Lubchenco and her staff about them.

“We did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data,” the inspector general concluded in a recent report. It also cleared Lucbhenco for testifying before Congress that the e-mails did not weaken the science of climate change.

Huffington Post article and related>>>

Climate Skeptics Unpersuaded By Extra-Warm 2010

Fox News Boss Ordered Staffers To Cast Doubt On Climate Change Science

‘Climategate’ Debunking Gets Less Coverage Than Original Trumped-Up Scandal (VIDEO)

How much money was wasted by the most ignorant member of the senate?  I thought the conservaturds want to save our valuable resources like revenues.  Obviously Inhofe didn’t get the memo in time to stop this misguided quest to overturn peer reviewed science.
The obvious answer
Filed under:


* Communicating Climate
* skeptics

— rasmus @ 28 January 2011

Climate science appears to be just like any other science. At least, this is the conclusion from a fresh publication by Marianne Ryghaug and Tomas Moe Skjølsvold (“The global warming of climate science: Climategate and the construction of scientific facts” in International studies in the philosophy of science). This finding is not news to the research community, but this analysis still hints that everything is not as it should be – because why would anyone report from a crime scene if the alleged crime has not even been committed?

The background of this story (the “crime scene”) is a `Science and technology Study’ (STS) by Ryghaug and Skjølsvold, who attempted to make some sense out of the leaked e-mails from CRU for clues on how climate scientists work. I must admit that I sometimes see some irony when reading texts from social sciences about the `tribalism’ of natural sciences. For instance, many of them use a very formalised language that can be hard to follow, while they describe different parts of the science community as `tribes’ with its own norms, codes, and dialects.

One real difference between the `tribes’ of natural scientists and STS scholars may be the perception of `facts’: Ryghaug and Skjølsvold conclude that “scientific facts are made and not just discovered”. In contrast, I think most natural scientists feel that facts are facts, whether we know about them or not. Nuclear reactions and atoms were real, even before people knew about them. But Ryghaug and Skjølsvold’s assertion that “Fact-construction relies on persuasive skills” may give some people the wrong idea about how things work, perhaps ironically a bit like the word “trick” in the CRU e-mails.


About ItheMissingLink

Retired longshoreman at the Port of Seattle. US Navy veteran 9 patrol FBM nuclear submarines; married 29 years
This entry was posted in News and politics, Science News, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s