or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Climategate
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Climategate

post #1 of 3039
Thread Starter 
By now I'm sure most of us have heard of the hacked e-mails and documents that make the meaning of the words "peer reviewed", "consensus", and "facts" utterly false when it comes to "anthropogenic climate change".

If you haven't heard, here's a fantastic resource to help you get up to speed on the latest:

http://www.climatedepot.com/

Thoughts?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

By now I'm sure most of us have heard of the hacked e-mails and documents that make the meaning of the words "peer reviewed", "consensus", and "facts" utterly false when it comes to "anthropogenic climate change".

If you haven't heard, here's a fantastic resource to help you get up to speed on the latest:

http://www.climatedepot.com/

Thoughts?

So what?
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #3 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

So what?

Good one.

I don't expect anyone here who has blasted me and others for our skepticism on this matter to man up and admit there might be a teeny-weeny possibility they were wrong and many of the "scientists" they put their faith in were spewing ideology over true science, falsifying data and covering up the truth.

It would be nice, but I don't expect it.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #4 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Good one.

I don't expect anyone here who has blasted me and others for our skepticism on this matter to man up and admit there might be a teeny-weeny possibility they were wrong and many of the "scientists" they put their faith in were spewing ideology over true science, falsifying data and covering up the truth.

It would be nice, but I don't expect it.

If you don't accept the reality of Climate Change, Al Gore will plant a tree in your front yard in the middle of the night. Tape toy guns to the branches and hope you believe it is the forests coming for their revenge...
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/...=news-col-blog
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #5 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Good one.

I don't expect anyone here who has blasted me and others for our skepticism on this matter to man up and admit there might be a teeny-weeny possibility they were wrong and many of the "scientists" they put their faith in were spewing ideology over true science, falsifying data and covering up the truth.

It would be nice, but I don't expect it.

No one's blasted you for your skepticism that I'm aware of. They've blasted you for your total disregard of the science. You call it skepticism. I call it junk food politics.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php.../the-cru-hack/
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #6 of 3039
If these emails are representative -- if they have really cooked the books/code -- these scientists have set modernity back 50 years. They will have destroyed the credibility of the establishment, and brought outright anarchy on themselves.




Science needs no defense -- we don't argue about the distance of the Earth to the Sun. What the hell is wrong with free inquiry?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Str...ic_Revolutions


In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #7 of 3039
I have some experience with the academic politics of publishing in peer review publications. Of course it's not all hypothesis driven research where the methods and results critically reviewed and the paper accepted if the science is sound. Reviewers and editors can and do kill papers because they don't want to publish results. They can and do publish shit papers because they want to see the results published. Anyone shocked?

It would be interesting to link a specific published paper to an email exchange that related to the message and results before publication. It may point to academic fraud. Proving that would be difficult because only the author knows if an edit was added to shade the results. They could claim that the last draft was true to the first.
post #8 of 3039
You know... I've seen lots of hysteria over this from conservatives (many of the same ones cheering this "hack" were aghast at the violation of Palin's Yahoo email.... LOL), but I've yet to see a single QUOTE of any supposedly-incriminating email exchanges.

I wonder why that is?
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #9 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

You know... I've seen lots of hysteria over this from conservatives (many of the same ones cheering this "hack" were aghast at the violation of Palin's Yahoo email.... LOL), but I've yet to see a single QUOTE of any supposedly-incriminating email exchanges.

I wonder why that is?

I found a compilation of quotes easily via a link at the top of the page on http://climatedepot.com

Here you go:

http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2009/1...-verdades.html

The blog is in Portuguese, but the quotes from the e-mails are all in English. Enjoy.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #10 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

No one's blasted you for your skepticism that I'm aware of. They've blasted you for your total disregard of the science. You call it skepticism. I call it junk food politics.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php.../the-cru-hack/

You should be blasting these "scientists" for their total disregard of science.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #11 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

You should be blasting these "scientists" for their total disregard of science.


That is the funniest come back I have read in a while.

Good one!

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #12 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

If these emails are representative -- if they have really cooked the books/code -- these scientists have set modernity back 50 years. They will have destroyed the credibility of the establishment, and brought outright anarchy on themselves.




Science needs no defense -- we don't argue about the distance of the Earth to the Sun. What the hell is wrong with free inquiry?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Str...ic_Revolutions



What does a layman's book on the sociology of knowledge, written in 1962, have to do with the well respected peer reviewed climate science literature?

[CENTER]
Quote:
In 1987, Kuhn's work was reported to be the twentieth-century book most frequently cited in the period 1976-83 in the Arts and the Humanities ...

[/CENTER]

[CENTER][/CENTER]

Criticisms of Kuhn and SSR

Quote:
Kuhn's SSR was soon criticized by his colleagues in the history and philosophy of science. ...

Scientific method

Quote:
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. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

The distance from the Earth to the Sun is not a constant, never has been, never will be.

Posit this if you will, what is the frame of reference of our solar system? Hint there actually is one, but it's not a constant and is currently being updated, and will again be updated at some point in the future (p = 1).

What will be the orientation of all objects in our solar system with respect to this reference frame at some future point in time (that time being beyoud our current knowledge of the accuracy of all currently known orbital parameters)? Can we say so with absolute certainty? Hint p != 1.

We are, of course, in PO, not in SO or SI.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #13 of 3039
Thread Starter 
fanksargent, I'm actually looking forward to your response on the OT if you can muster one.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #14 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

fanksargent, I'm actually looking forward to your response on the OT if you can muster one.

Is there anything to discuss?

There are a bunch of apparently cherry picked emails, that's a given, none of which, BTW, appears in the well respected peer reviewed climate science literature.

You're the one with the drive by thread, making ad hoc assumptions on largely out-of-context materials.

But just to humor you, have you ever worked for the government as either an employee or contractor?

Do you have any firsthand knowledge of IP and FOI issues in that regard?

I'm guessing no and no for anyone who has ever posted in PO, excluding myself, then the answers would be yes and yes, of course.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #15 of 3039
I will very gladly answer to the OT.

Firstly, these emails did not originate from some Evil Global Warming Conspiracy Headquarters. Even if they were nakedly deceitful, they don't cancel out the abundance of data that suggest that climate change is linked to human industry and agriculture and transport.

They just don't.

Secondly, if anyone would like to pick their favourite email and cite it I'll discuss it, point-by-point. Because all these emails are taken completely out of context and some parts are put in bold below a ludicrous headline to make them look evil.

So come on. You birthers and young earthers and truthers and climate change sceptics for whom the truth is suddenly more important than political agenda.

Let's talk about them. Come on then.
post #16 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

He can't. he will deflect and change the subject. The truth doesn't matter to liberals ONLY their political agenda matters.

Z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z ...
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #17 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Is there anything to discuss?

There are a bunch of apparently cherry picked emails, that's a given, none of which, BTW, appears in the well respected peer reviewed climate science literature.

You're the one with the drive by thread, making ad hoc assumptions on largely out-of-context materials.

But just to humor you, have you ever worked for the government as either an employee or contractor?

Do you have any firsthand knowledge of IP and FOI issues in that regard?

I'm guessing no and no for anyone who has ever posted in PO, excluding myself, then the answers would be yes and yes, of course.

Entertaining. And predictable. I was expecting you to bring up the "peer reviewed" angle, as well as tout your own extensive credentials and credentials. You did not disappoint. In that regard, anyway.

Your response is not a response at all.

It's an excuse.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #18 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Entertaining. And predictable. I was expecting you to bring up the "peer reviewed" angle, as well as tout your own extensive credentials and credentials. You did not disappoint. In that regard, anyway.

Your response is not a response at all.

It's an excuse.

Yes, and your thread is just s-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o thoughtfully constructed.

What with, not willing to talk about the actual science, let's just discuss out-of-context cherry picked emails and make blindsighted accusations, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

Don't you just love the blog-o-smear?

Of Birthers and Denialers.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #19 of 3039
Mystic called that one.
post #20 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

I will very gladly answer to the OT.

Firstly, these emails did not originate from some Evil Global Warming Conspiracy Headquarters. Even if they were nakedly deceitful, they don't cancel out the abundance of data that suggest that climate change is linked to human industry and agriculture and transport.

They just don't.

Secondly, if anyone would like to pick their favourite email and cite it I'll discuss it, point-by-point. Because all these emails are taken completely out of context and some parts are put in bold below a ludicrous headline to make them look evil.

So come on. You birthers and young earthers and truthers and climate change sceptics for whom the truth is suddenly more important than political agenda.

Let's talk about them. Come on then.

The "abundance of data" you are referring to could very well be inaccurate, flawed, and/or fabricated, based on some of the things I'm reading in these e-mails.

But okay, if you want to argue over specifics, here's one.

Read the e-mail here and then tell me how the following passage is taken out of context:

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !"

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #21 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Yes, and your thread is just s-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o thoughtfully constructed.

What with, not willing to talk about the actual science, let's just discuss out-of-context cherry picked emails and make blindsighted accusations, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

Don't you just love the blog-o-smear?

Of Birthers and Denialers.

I forgot to mention the other element I expected in your reply: condescension.

This whole notion of "peer reviewed", which is one of the pillars of your argument, is being exposed as a farce in these e-mails.

What of the data beind the "actual science"? Data that might have been hidden, destroyed, altered, and/or "massaged" to produce desired results?

FloorJack hit it right on the nose:

"It would be interesting to link a specific published paper to an email exchange that related to the message and results before publication. It may point to academic fraud. Proving that would be difficult because only the author knows if an edit was added to shade the results. They could claim that the last draft was true to the first."

What good is the "peer review" process if the underlying data that everyone is going off of is incorrect/fabricated/incomplete to begin with?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #22 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I forgot to mention the other element I expected in your reply: condescension.

This whole notion of "peer reviewed", which is one of the pillars of your argument, is being exposed as a farce in these e-mails.

What of the data beind the "actual science"? Data that might have been hidden, destroyed, altered, and/or "massaged" to produce desired results?

FloorJack hit it right on the nose:

"It would be interesting to link a specific published paper to an email exchange that related to the message and results before publication. It may point to academic fraud. Proving that would be difficult because only the author knows if an edit was added to shade the results. They could claim that the last draft was true to the first."

What good is the "peer review" process if the underlying data that everyone is going off of is incorrect/fabricated/incomplete to begin with?

You bring on the condescension yourself, because you lack the basic toolkit to understand the science as it exists in the well respected peer reviewed climate science literature.

You are at fault for not wanting to understand even the basics of the science.

You make unfounded accusations based on your basis lack of understanding of the physical processes involved.

You clearly are not schooled in the scientific method, of that there can be absolutely no doubt (p = 0).

PO has neven been a place to have a serious discussion of the science, or of any science for that matter. AFAIK there are no researchers or scientists who post in PO, except for myself.

And you know what? I don't like talking to the wall of scientific ignorance that clearly exists in PO.

Your drive by thread and drive by posts clearly speak to this basic fact of PO ignorance on all matters scientific. \
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #23 of 3039
Climatic Research Unit update - November 24, 3.30pm

The University of East Anglia has released statements from Prof Trevor Davies, Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research, Prof Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit, and from CRU.
Statement from Professor Trevor Davies, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research

The publication of a selection of the emails and data stolen from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) has led to some questioning of the climate science research published by CRU and others. There is nothing in the stolen material which indicates that peer-reviewed publications by CRU, and others, on the nature of global warming and related climate change are not of the highest-quality of scientific investigation and interpretation. CRUs peer-reviewed publications are consistent with, and have contributed to, the overwhelming scientific consensus that the climate is being strongly influenced by human activity. The interactions of the atmosphere, oceans, land, and ice mean that the strongly-increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere do not produce a uniform year-on-year increase in global temperature. On time-scales of 5-10 years, however, there is a broad scientific consensus that the Earth will continue to warm, with attendant changes in the climate, for the foreseeable future. It is important, for all countries, that this warming is slowed down, through substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to reduce the most dangerous impacts of climate change. Respected international research groups, using other data sets, have come to the same conclusion.

The University of East Anglia and CRU are committed to scientific integrity, open debate and enhancing understanding. This includes a commitment to the international peer-review system upon which progress in science relies. It is this tried and tested system which has underpinned the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It is through that process that we can engage in respectful and informed debate with scientists whose analyses appear not to be consistent with the current overwhelming consensus on climate change

The publication of a selection of stolen data is the latest example of a sustained and, in some instances, a vexatious campaign which may have been designed to distract from reasoned debate about the nature of the urgent action which world governments must consider to mitigate, and adapt to, climate change. We are committed to furthering this debate despite being faced with difficult circumstances related to a criminal breach of our security systems and our concern to protect colleagues from the more extreme behaviour of some who have responded in irrational and unpleasant ways to the publication of personal information.

There has been understandable interest in the progress and outcome of the numerous requests under information legislation for large numbers of the data series held by CRU. The University takes its responsibilities under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Environmental Information Regulations 2004, and the Data Protection Act 1998 very seriously and has, in all cases, handled and responded to requests in accordance with its obligations under each particular piece of legislation. Where appropriate, we have consulted with the Information Commissioners Office and have followed their advice.

In relation to the specific requests at issue here, we have handled and responded to each request in a consistent manner in compliance with the appropriate legislation. No record has been deleted, altered, or otherwise dealt with in any fashion with the intent of preventing the disclosure of all, or any part, of the requested information. Where information has not been disclosed, we have done so in accordance with the provisions of the relevant legislation and have so informed the requester.

The Climatic Research Unit holds many data series, provided to the Unit over a period of several decades, from a number of nationally-funded institutions and other research organisations around the world, with specific agreements made over restrictions in the dissemination of those original data. All of these individual series have been used in CRUs analyses. It is a time-consuming process to attempt to gain approval from these organisations to release the data. Since some of them were provided decades ago, it has sometimes been necessary to track down the successors of the original organisations. It is clearly in the public interest that these data are released once we have succeeded in gaining the approval of collaborators. Some who have requested the data will have been aware of the scale of the exercise we have had to undertake. Much of these data are already available from the websites of the Global Historical Climate Data Network and the Goddard Institute for Space Science.

Given the degree to which we collaborate with other organisations around the world, there is also an understandable interest in the computer security systems we have in place in CRU and UEA. Although we were confident that our systems were appropriate, experience has shown that determined and skilled people, who are prepared to engage in criminal activity, can sometimes hack into apparently secure systems. Highly-protected government organisations around the world have also learned this to their cost.

We have, therefore, decided to conduct an independent review, which will address the issue of data security, an assessment of how we responded to a deluge of Freedom of Information requests, and any other relevant issues which the independent reviewer advises should be addressed.



Statement from Professor Phil Jones, Head of the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia.

In the frenzy of the past few days, the most vital issue is being overshadowed: we face enormous challenges ahead if we are to continue to live on this planet.

One has to wonder if it is a coincidence that this email correspondence has been stolen and published at this time. This may be a concerted attempt to put a question mark over the science of climate change in the run-up to the Copenhagen talks.

That the world is warming is based on a range of sources: not only temperature records but other indicators such as sea level rise, glacier retreat and less Arctic sea ice.

Our global temperature series tallies with those of other, completely independent, groups of scientists working for NASA and the National Climate Data Center in the United States, among others. Even if you were to ignore our findings, theirs show the same results. The facts speak for themselves; there is no need for anyone to manipulate them.

We have been bombarded by Freedom of Information requests to release the temperature data that are provided to us by meteorological services around the world via a large network of weather stations. This information is not ours to give without the permission of the meteorological services involved. We have responded to these Freedom of Information requests appropriately and with the knowledge and guidance of the Information Commissioner.

We have stated that we hope to gain permission from each of these services to publish their data in the future and we are in the process of doing so.

My colleagues and I accept that some of the published emails do not read well. I regret any upset or confusion caused as a result. Some were clearly written in the heat of the moment, others use colloquialisms frequently used between close colleagues.

We are, and have always been, scrupulous in ensuring that our science publications are robust and honest.


CRU statement

Recently thousands of files and emails illegally obtained from a research server at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have been posted on various sites on the web. The emails relate to messages received or sent by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) over the period 1996-2009.

A selection of these emails have been taken out of context and misinterpreted as evidence that CRU has manipulated climate data to present an unrealistic picture of global warming.

This conclusion is entirely unfounded and the evidence from CRU research is entirely consistent with independent evidence assembled by various research groups around the world.

There is excellent agreement on the course of temperature change since 1881 between the data set that we contribute to (HadCRUT3) and two other, independent analyses of worldwide temperature measurements. There are no statistically significant differences between the warming trends in the three series since the start of the 20th century. The three independent global temperature data series have been assembled by:

CRU and the Met Office Hadley Centre (HadCRUT3) in the UK.
The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Asheville, NC, USA.
The Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), part of the National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) in New York.

The warming shown by the HadCRUT3 series between the averages of the two periods (1850-99 and 2001-2005) was 0.76±0.19°C, and this is corroborated by the other two data sets.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its 4th Assessment Report (AR4) published in 2007 concluded that the warming of the climate system was unequivocal. This conclusion was based not only on the observational temperature record, although this is the key piece of evidence, but on multiple strands of evidence. These factors include: long-term retreat of glaciers in most alpine regions of the world; reductions in the area of the Northern Hemisphere (NH) snow cover during the spring season; reductions in the length of the freeze season in many NH rivers and lakes; reduction in Arctic sea-ice extent in all seasons, but especially in the summer; increases in global average sea level since the 19th century; increases in the heat content of the ocean and warming of temperatures in the lower part of the atmosphere since the late 1950s.

CRU has also been involved in reconstructions of temperature (primarily for the Northern Hemisphere) from proxy data (non-instrumental sources such as tree rings, ice cores, corals and documentary records). Similar temperature reconstructions have been developed by numerous other groups around the world. The level of uncertainty in this indirect evidence for temperature change is much greater than for the picture of temperature change shown by the instrumental data. But different reconstructions of temperature change over a longer period, produced by different researchers using different methods, show essentially the same picture of highly unusual warmth across the NH during the 20th century. The principal conclusion from these studies (summarized in IPCC AR4) is that the second half of the 20th century was very likely (90% probable) warmer than any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely (66% probable) the warmest in the past 1300 years.

One particular, illegally obtained, email relates to the preparation of a figure for the WMO Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 1999. This email referred to a trick of adding recent instrumental data to the end of temperature reconstructions that were based on proxy data. The requirement for the WMO Statement was for up-to-date evidence showing how temperatures may have changed over the last 1000 years. To produce temperature series that were completely up-to-date (i.e. through to 1999) it was necessary to combine the temperature reconstructions with the instrumental record, because the temperature reconstructions from proxy data ended many years earlier whereas the instrumental record is updated every month. The use of the word trick was not intended to imply any deception.

Phil Jones comments further: One of the three temperature reconstructions was based entirely on a particular set of tree-ring data that shows a strong correlation with temperature from the 19th century through to the mid-20th century, but does not show a realistic trend of temperature after 1960. This is well known and is called the decline or divergence. The use of the term hiding the decline was in an email written in haste. CRU has not sought to hide the decline. Indeed, CRU has published a number of articles that both illustrate, and discuss the implications of, this recent tree-ring decline, including the article that is listed in the legend of the WMO Statement figure. It is because of this trend in these tree-ring data that we know does not represent temperature change that I only show this series up to 1960 in the WMO Statement.

The decline in this set of tree-ring data should not be taken to mean that there is any problem with the instrumental temperature data. As for the tree-ring decline, various manifestations of this phenomenon have been discussed by numerous authors, and its implications are clearly signposted in Chapter 6 of the IPCC AR4 report.

Included here is a copy of the figure used in the WMO statement, together with an alternative version where the climate reconstructions and the instrumental temperatures are shown separately.





The WMO1999 figure (top) with climate reconstructions and instrumental temperatures merged, and a version (bottom) with the climate reconstructions (coloured) and instrumental temperatures (annual & summer in black) shown separately.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #24 of 3039
Climatic Research Unit update - 17.45 November 23

Tue, 24 Nov 2009
It is a matter of concern that data, including personal information about individuals, appears to have been illegally taken from the university and elements published selectively on a number of websites.
The volume of material published and its piecemeal nature makes it impossible to confirm what proportion is genuine. We took immediate action to remove the server in question from operation and have involved the police in what we consider to be a criminal investigation.

The material published relates to the work of our globally-respected Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and other scientists around the world. CRU's published research is, and has always been, fully peer-reviewed by the relevant journals, and is one strand of research underpinning the strong consensus that human activity is affecting the world's climate in ways that are potentially dangerous.

CRU is one of a number of independent centres working in this important area and reaching similar conclusions. It will continue to engage fully in reasoned debate on its findings with individuals and groups that are willing to have their research and theories subjected to scrutiny by the international scientific community. The selective publication of some stolen emails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way.

The raw climate data which has been requested belongs to meteorological services around the globe and restrictions are in place which means that we are not in a position to release them. We are asking each service for their consent for their data to be published in future.

In addition to supporting the police in their enquiries, we will ourselves be conducting a review, with external support, into the circumstances surrounding the theft and publication of this information and any issues emerging from it.

Comment from Professor Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit:

The following email, which I can confirm is genuine, has caused a great deal of ill-informed comment, but has been taken completely out of context and I want to put the record straight.

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct +is 0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998."
The first thing to point out is that this refers to one diagram - not a scientific paper - which was used in the World Meteorological Organisation's statement on the status of the global climate in 1999 (WMO-no.913).

The diagram consisted of three curves showing 50-year average temperature variations for the last 1000 years. Each curve referred to a scientific paper and a key gives their details.

Climate records consist of actual temperature records from the mid-19th century and proxy data (tree rings, coral, ice cores, etc) which go back much further. The green curve on the diagram included proxy data up to 1960 but only actual temperatures from 1961 onwards. This is what is being discussed in the email.

The word 'trick' was used here colloquially as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #25 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

You bring on the condescension yourself, because you lack the basic toolkit to understand the science as it exists in the well respected peer reviewed climate science literature.

You are at fault for not wanting to understand even the basics of the science.

You make unfounded accusations based on your basis lack of understanding of the physical processes involved.

You clearly are not schooled in the scientific method, of that there can be absolutely no doubt (p = 0).

PO has neven been a place to have a serious discussion of the science, or of any science for that matter. AFAIK there are no researchers or scientists who post in PO, except for myself.

And you know what? I don't like talking to the wall of scientific ignorance that clearly exists in PO.

Your drive by thread and drive by posts clearly speak to this basic fact of PO ignorance on all matters scientific. \

Keep digging.

This was just one long ad-hom. You don't want to address any questions raised, so you attack the person or persons who raised them, deeming them unworthy of a response.

"You are unschooled in the scientific method, you're ignorant, your intellect is miniscule compared to mine, blah, blah, blah..."

That's all fine and dandy, and I'm sure it gives you a special thrill to be able to say that on a daily basis. But it is utterly pointless.

Are you going to address the issues raised in these e-mails and documents, which more and more people from the pro-AGW crowd readily admit are quite egregious?

Are you going to contribute anything meaningful to the conversation, or not?

Look, this is being covered in the mainstream media - even they can't ignore it. It's a big deal.

So tell us, franksargent. Based on your vast experience, extensive credentials, and superior intellect, is it possible - POSSIBLE - that these e-mails and documents indicate that the peer review process is not infallible?

That discussions were had regarding the exclusion of scientists deemed to be "skeptics" from the peer review process?

That there could have been some manipulation, deletion, modification of the data - at least in these instances?

Is it possible that there were attempts - or at the very least suggestions to attempt to delete or hide information that should have been available under Freedom of Information laws?

**Edited to say that franksargent began cutting and pasting his rebuttals for some of the specific e-mails as I was writing this post.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #26 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Is there anything to discuss?

There are a bunch of apparently cherry picked emails, that's a given, none of which, BTW, appears in the well respected peer reviewed climate science literature.

You're the one with the drive by thread, making ad hoc assumptions on largely out-of-context materials.

But just to humor you, have you ever worked for the government as either an employee or contractor?

Do you have any firsthand knowledge of IP and FOI issues in that regard?

I'm guessing no and no for anyone who has ever posted in PO, excluding myself, then the answers would be yes and yes, of course.

And you'd be wrong and wrong.

ACORN first quoted the party line, ignored the growing scandal and blasted the messenger. Denials were made, counter-accusations, etc, all these were part and parcel and continue to be the method de jour.

I expect no less from CRU.

First they "lose" the original data, now after the tip of the iceberg is exposed, you're seeing them scramble in the same fashion as ACORN.
post #27 of 3039
According to the University of East Anglia, the stolen documents and e-mails had been selected deliberately to undermine the strong consensus that human activity is affecting the world's climate in ways that are potentially dangerous. The university said in a statement: "The selective publication of some stolen e-mails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way".

The Washington Post's correspondent Juliet Eilperin wrote that the e-mails revealed "an intellectual circle that appears to feel very much under attack, and eager to punish its enemies." She commented that the material provides "a rare glimpse into the behind-the-scenes battle to shape the public perception of global warming."

The CRU's researchers said in a statement that the e-mails had been taken out of context and merely reflected an honest exchange of ideas. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, called the charges that the emails involve any "untoward" activity "ludicrous." Michael Mann, director of Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Center, told the Washington Post that skeptics were "taking these words totally out of context to make something trivial appear nefarious". Kevin E. Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research said that he was "appalled" at the release of the e-mails but thought that it might backfire against climate skeptics, as the messages would show "the integrity of scientists." He has also said that the theft may be aimed at undermining talks at next month's Copenhagen global climate summit.

Computerworld magazine reported that the CEO of the consultancy Errata Security felt it was likely that an "insider" was responsible for the incident. It cited the view of RealClimate, a forum for climate change scientists, that what was not contained in the e-mails was the most interesting element: "There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to 'get rid of the MWP' [Medieval Warm Period], no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no 'marching orders' from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords." The science historian Spencer R. Weart, interviewed in the Washington Post, commented that the theft of the e-mails and the reaction to them was "a symptom of something entirely new in the history of science: Aside from crackpots who complain that a conspiracy is suppressing their personal discoveries, we've never before seen a set of people accuse an entire community of scientists of deliberate deception and other professional malfeasance. Even the tobacco companies never tried to slander legitimate cancer researchers."

The American Association for the Advancement of Science has "expressed concern that the hacked emails would weaken global resolve to curb greenhouse-gas emissions".

The Daily Telegraph reported that academics and climate change researchers have dismissed allegations from skeptics that the emails are evidence of a collusion or international conspiracy, saying that nothing in the emails proves wrongdoing. A spokesman for the Met Office that works with the UEA on climate monitoring, said: "We are utterly confident that there was no collusion or manipulation. All the data used was peer reviewed and we are certain it is fully reliable."
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #28 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

And you'd be wrong and wrong.

Well, nothing you've ever posted suggests that you have worked for the government as a researcher or a scientist, if fact, not even a researcher or scientist of any kind, as shown from all the blog-o-smear posts you only seem to link to.

Prove otherwise.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #29 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Keep digging.

This was just one long ad-hom. You don't want to address any questions raised, so you attack the person or persons who raised them, deeming them unworthy of a response.

"You are unschooled in the scientific method, you're ignorant, your intellect is miniscule compared to mine, blah, blah, blah..."

That's all fine and dandy, and I'm sure it gives you a special thrill to be able to say that on a daily basis. But it is utterly pointless.

Are you going to address the issues raised in these e-mails and documents, which more and more people from the pro-AGW crowd readily admit are quite egregious?

Are you going to contribute anything meaningful to the conversation, or not?

Look, this is being covered in the mainstream media - even they can't ignore it. It's a big deal.

So tell us, franksargent. Based on your vast experience, extensive credentials, and superior intellect, is it possible - POSSIBLE - that these e-mails and documents indicate that the peer review process is not infallible?

That discussions were had regarding the exclusion of scientists deemed to be "skeptics" from the peer review process?

That there could have been some manipulation, deletion, modification of the data - at least in these instances?

Is it possible that there were attempts - or at the very least suggestions to attempt to delete or hide information that should have been available under Freedom of Information laws?

**Edited to say that franksargent began cutting and pasting his rebuttals for some of the specific e-mails as I was writing this post.

No meaningful content, no comment.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #30 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Refuse to give any credence to the issues raised by these e-mails, yet take those under fire at their word when they offer excuses/explanations.

Seems rather unscientific to me.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #31 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

No meaningful content, no comment.

One of your favorite replies. How very scientific of you.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #32 of 3039
Interview with Patrick J. Michaels:
  • past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and was program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society
  • research professor of Environmental Sciences at University of Virginia for thirty years
  • contributing author and reviewer of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
  • has been published in the major scientific journals, including Climate Research, Climatic Change, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Climate, Nature
  • author of the climate "paper of the year" awarded by the Association of American Geographers in 2004
  • holds A.B. and S.M. degrees in biological sciences and plant ecology from the University of Chicago, and he received a Ph.D. in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin at Madison in 1979
post #33 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

Interview with Patrick J. Michaels:
  • past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and was program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society
  • research professor of Environmental Sciences at University of Virginia for thirty years
  • contributing author and reviewer of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
  • has been published in the major scientific journals, including Climate Research, Climatic Change, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Climate, Nature
  • author of the climate "paper of the year" awarded by the Association of American Geographers in 2004
  • holds A.B. and S.M. degrees in biological sciences and plant ecology from the University of Chicago, and he received a Ph.D. in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin at Madison in 1979

That guy - http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...ls#post1411877, which equals= http://www.westernfuels.org/index.cfm



The best analysis of all this I've found is here- http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/2009...mail-leak.html
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #34 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

What does a layman's book...

Oh for heaven's sake, It's not a "layman's book". Kuhn, following Polanyi, simply pointed out the obvious -- something that Popper touches on as well. It's nothing more or less than the "you can't see the problem, until you remove the problem."

ANNNNND... if you are telling me that the guy who literally came up the idea/term of the paradigm shift -- is somehow off in left field, you need to have your head examined.

What everyone is missing, is that SOMEHOW WallStreet can delude itself with the most advanced mathematicians money can buy. But by golly, the CHURCH OF REASON is immune.


No, it's not.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #35 of 3039
Me thinks thou doth protest too much...
post #36 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Oh for heaven's sake, It's not a "layman's book". Kuhn, following Polanyi, simply pointed out the obvious -- something that Popper touches on as well. It's nothing more or less than the "you can't see the problem, until you remove the problem."

ANNNNND... if you are telling me that the guy who literally came up the idea/term of the paradigm shift -- is somehow off in left field, you need to have your head examined.

What everyone is missing, is that WallStreet can delude itself with the most advanced mathematicians money can buy. But by golly, the CHURCH OF REASON is immune.

No, it's not.

Despite the patronising tone, your comparison is very poor.

Economic values shift according to criteria which are impossible to predict. Most are cultural. Some are meteorological. Predictive economics is not the same as 'mathematics'.

Climate change, on the other hand, can be measured. And it has been measured. And its progress can be predicted, since its causes have been isolated.

And it is not the same as 'mathematics' either. It is also immune to prayer.
post #37 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

The "abundance of data" you are referring to could very well be inaccurate, flawed, and/or fabricated, based on some of the things I'm reading in these e-mails.

But okay, if you want to argue over specifics, here's one.

Read the e-mail here and then tell me how the following passage is taken out of context:

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !"

The press releases posted below explain far better than I can the out-of-context nature of these emails. Really, you should read those before we continue this.

But assuming that you have read them, what, exactly, do you object to in this email?

The first thing you have to do is tell me what "those papers" are.

What are "those papers"? What is in them?

When you've done that, I suppose we can continue.
post #38 of 3039
The political will to do something about green house gas emissions was on the ropes before these emails came out. Obama was given the bums rush by Asia on climate change and Copenhagen was a submitted to FAIL blog even before he left for China.
post #39 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Oh for heaven's sake, It's not a "layman's book". Kuhn, following Polanyi, simply pointed out the obvious -- something that Popper touches on as well. It's nothing more or less than the "you can't see the problem, until you remove the problem."

ANNNNND... if you are telling me that the guy who literally came up the idea/term of the paradigm shift -- is somehow off in left field, you need to have your head examined.

Why no commentary on the scientific method, I wonder.

Quote:
SSR has also been embraced by those wishing to discredit or attack the authority of science, such as creationists and radical environmentalists, and it was also in tune with the national change in attitudes towards science which was occurring at the time of the book's publication (Rachel Carson's Silent Spring was published in the same year as SSR). Indeed, modern scholars have speculated whether Kuhn would have been more explicit about his intention not to create a tool that could be used for attempting to undermine science and the scientific process if he had been able to foresee these developments.

Quote:
The terms "paradigm" and "paradigm shift" have become such notorious clichés and buzzwords that they are viewed in many circles as being effectively devoid of content. Misused and overused to the point of becoming meaningless, their use in these contexts rarely has any firm foundation in Kuhn's original definitions.

Quote:
Criticisms of Kuhn and SSR

Kuhn's SSR was soon criticized by his colleagues in the history and philosophy of science. In 1965, a special symposium on Kuhn's SSR was held at an International Colloquium on the Philosophy of Science that took place at Bedford College, London, and was chaired by Sir Karl Popper. The symposium led to the publication of the symposium's presentations plus other essays, most of them critical, which eventually appeared in an influential volume of essays that by 1999 had gone through 21 printings. Kuhn expressed the opinion that his critics' readings of his book were so inconsistent with his own understanding of it that he was "...tempted to posit the existence of two Thomas Kuhns," one the author of his book, the other the individual who had been criticized in the symposium by "Professors Popper, Feyerabend, Lakatos, Toulmin and Watkins."

Concept of paradigm

In his 1972 work, Human Understanding, Stephen Toulmin argued that a more realistic picture of science than that presented in SSR would admit the fact that revisions in science take place much more frequently, and are much less dramatic than can be explained by the model of revolution/normal science. In Toulmin's view, such revisions occur quite often during periods of what Kuhn would call "normal science." In order for Kuhn to explain such revisions in terms of the non-paradigmatic puzzle solutions of normal science, he would need to delineate what is perhaps an implausibly sharp distinction between paradigmatic and non-paradigmatic science.

Incommensurability of paradigms

In a series of texts published in the early 1970s, C.R. Kordig asserted a position somewhere between that of Kuhn and the older philosophy of science. His criticism of the Kuhnian position was that the incommensurability thesis was too radical, and that this made it impossible to explain the confrontation of scientific theories which actually occurs. According to Kordig, it is in fact possible to admit the existence of revolutions and paradigm shifts in science while still recognizing that theories belonging to different paradigms can be compared and confronted on the plane of observation. Those who accept the incommensurability thesis do not do so because they admit the discontinuity of paradigms, but because they attribute a radical change in meanings to such shifts.

Kordig maintains that there is a common observational plane. For example, when Kepler and Tycho Brahe are trying to explain the relative variation of the distance of the sun from the horizon at sunrise, both see the same thing (the same configuration is focused on the retina of each individual). This is just one example of the fact that "rival scientific theories share some observations, and therefore some meanings." Kordig suggests that with this approach, he is not reintroducing the distinction between observations and theory in which the former is assigned a privileged and neutral status, but that it is possible to affirm more simply the fact that, even if no sharp distinction exists between theory and observations, this does not imply that there are no comprehensible differences at the two extremes of this polarity.

At a secondary level, for Kordig there is a common plane of inter-paradigmatic standards or shared norms which permit the effective confrontation of rival theories.

In 1973, Hartry Field published an article which also sharply criticized Kuhn's idea of incommensurability. In particular, he took issue with this passage from Kuhn:

"Newtonian mass is immutably conserved; that of Einstein is convertible into energy. Only at very low relative velocities can the two masses be measured in the same way, and even then they must not be conceived as if they were the same thing." (Kuhn 1970).

Field takes this idea of incommensurability between the same terms in different theories one step further. Instead of attempting to identify a persistence of the reference of terms in different theories, Field's analysis emphasizes the indeterminacy of reference within individual theories. Field takes the example of the term "mass", and asks what exactly "mass" means in modern post-relativistic physics. He finds that there are at least two different definitions:

1) Relativistic mass: the mass of a particle is equal to the total energy of the particle divided by the speed of light squared. Since the total energy of a particle in relation to one system of reference differs from the total energy in relation to other systems of reference, while the speed of light remains constant in all systems, it follows that the mass of a particle has different values in different systems of reference.

2) "Real" mass: the mass of a particle is equal to the non-kinetic energy of a particle divided by the speed of light squared. Since non-kinetic energy is the same in all systems of reference, and the same is true of light, it follows that the mass of a particle has the same value in all systems of reference.

Projecting this distinction backwards in time onto Newtonian dynamics, we can formulate the following two hypotheses:

HR: the term "mass" in Newtonian theory denotes relativistic mass.
Hp: the term "mass" in Newtonian theory denotes "real" mass.

According to Field, it is impossible to decide which of these two affirmations is true. Prior to the theory of relativity, the term "mass" was referentially indeterminate. But this does not mean that the term "mass" did not have a different meaning than it now has. The problem is not one of meaning but of reference. The reference of such terms as mass is only partially determined: we don't really know how Newton intended his use of this term to be applied. As a consequence, neither of the two terms fully denotes (refers). It follows that it is improper to maintain that a term has changed its reference during a scientific revolution; it is more appropriate to describe terms such as "mass" as "having undergone a denotional refinement."

Incommensurability and perception

The close connection between the interpretationalist hypothesis and a holistic conception of beliefs is at the root of the notion of the dependence of perception on theory, a central concept in SSR. Kuhn maintained that the perception of the world depends on how the percipient conceives the world: two scientists who witness the same phenomenon and are steeped in two radically different theories will see two different things. According to this view, it is our interpretation of the world which determines what we see.

Jerry Fodor attempts to establish that this theoretical paradigm is fallacious and misleading by demonstrating the impenetrability of perception to the background knowledge of subjects. The strongest case can be based on evidence from experimental cognitive psychology, namely the persistence of perceptual illusions. Knowing that the lines in the Muller-Lyer illusion are equal does not prevent one from continuing to see one line as being longer than the other. It is this impenetrability of the information elaborated by the mental modules which limits the scope of interpretationalism.

In epistemology, for example, the criticism of what Fodor calls the interpretationalist hypothesis accounts for the common-sense intuition (on which naïve physics is based) of the independence of reality from the conceptual categories of the experimenter. If the processes of elaboration of the mental modules are in fact independent of the background theories, then it is possible to maintain the realist view that two scientists who embrace two radically diverse theories see the world exactly in the same manner even if they interpret it differently. The point is that it is necessary to distinguish between observations and the perceptual fixation of beliefs. While it is beyond doubt that the second process involves the holistic relationship between beliefs, the first is largely independent of the background beliefs of individuals.

Other critics, such as Israel Sheffler, Hilary Putnam and Saul Kripke, have focused on the Fregean distinction between sense and reference in order to defend a position of scientific realism. Sheffler contends that Kuhn confuses the meanings of terms such as "mass" with their references. While their meanings may very well differ, their references (the objects or entities to which they correspond in the external world) remain fixed.

Eurocentrism

More recently, criticism from a different direction has been developed by Arun Bala in his study The Dialogue of Civilizations in the Birth of Modern Science (Palgrave Macmillan, 2006). He charges that The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is itself a profoundly Eurocentric work, although it is often perceived as opening the door to the multicultural turn in historical studies of science. Bala charges that Kuhn ignores the significant impact of Arabic and Chinese science when he writes:

Every civilization of which we have records has possessed a technology, an art, a religion, a political system, laws and so on. In many cases those facets of civilizations have been as developed as our own. But only the civilizations that descend from Hellenic Greece have possessed more than the most rudimentary science. The bulk of scientific knowledge is a product of Europe in the last four centuries. No other place and time has supported the very special communities from which scientific productivity comes.
—Kuhn, 1962, pp. 167-168

Bala argues that it is precisely Kuhn’s postmodern epistemological paradigm which obstructs recognition of non-Western influences on modern science. Bala argues that this leads Kuhn to treat different cultural scientific traditions as separate intellectual universes isolated from each other. Instead, Bala argues, we would have a different multicultural picture of science by including the contributions from Arabic, Chinese, ancient Egyptian and Indian traditions of philosophy, mathematics, astronomy and physics that went into shaping the birth of modern science.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #40 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

The press releases posted below explain far better than I can the out-of-context nature of these emails. Really, you should read those before we continue this.

But assuming that you have read them, what, exactly, do you object to in this email?

The first thing you have to do is tell me what "those papers" are.

What are "those papers"? What is in them?

When you've done that, I suppose we can continue.

So, the talk of redefining the peer review literature is insignificant?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Climategate