Same five physicists who sent a letter on 29 October 2009 to all 100 US Senators titled "A Gaggle is not a Consensus", which was several months after their letter titled "TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES: YOU ARE BEING DECEIVED ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING." Signed Bob Austin (self-described as "alarmist skeptic" in posting from 2009/08/14), Will Happer ("reportedly fired by former Vice President Al Gore in 1993 for failing to adhere to Gore’s scientific views"), and others I don't care to look up.
There's nothing new here. They already had skin in this game.
I find it incredulous that people seem to believe that the entire global warming case rests on the results of a single research group.
They just talked about this on NPR and other climate researchers interviewed say this is a sad case of selective quotation and distortion of facts on the part of the critics. In addition, it appears the leak happened months ago but nothing was made public until now, coincidentally just before the Copenhagen meeting.
> entire global warming case rests on the results of a single research group.
To me it looks a lot more like the CDO thing with banking. They compare their data with other people's results and throw out what doesn't look correct without giving a good reason (e.g. tree ring reconstruction after 1960).
The argument from this selected data is that "we all couldn't be wrong"...
Meanwhile the horror videos show of glaciers breaking up (a seasonal process) blaming that on climate change. Yet, no mention is made of the increasing ice in Antarctica since 1980. The few that acknowledges this fact blames it on global warming...
I would like very much to see a summary of the evidence for global warming made which does not use the results of this group. I'd also like to see such an argument made by a known proponent of the theory, since any such summary made by an opponent or neutral party will be attacked as "denial".
It doesn't call into question global warming as much as it illustrates the biases and unscrupulous means to which humans will go to propagate a desired opinion of reality.
The issue at hand here is one of trust and integrity. If the scientific community has none, then it is degrading itself to other areas of thought that use fabricated realities to push agendas.
trust and integrity. If the scientific community has none...
This is exactly the sort of sweeping statement that the original comment was referring to. This is character assassination on a grand scale: Taking one aspect of one person's work and using that to cast FUD on all of science.
The "scientific community" doesn't rise or fall on the skill, actions, or integrity of one or two members, just as I have to accept that the "Ph.D.-holding physicist community" contains many people who are total loons, or even downright evil. We don't issue revokable membership cards.
The fact that cold fusion turned out to be a red herring doesn't cast suspicion on all the rest of nuclear physics. There is more than one piece of data in nuclear physics.
We should take into account the reaction of the community when one or two of its members is found untrustworthy. Does the community condone dishonest behavior or condemn it?
It would be interesting to go read that IPCC report and see what role that group and its data actually play. The reporting is that their role was very important but how do we know?
It should be possible to move on from conspiracy theories and questioning of people's intentions to some kind of fact finding mission.
"By now everyone has heard of what has come to be known as ClimateGate, which was and is an international scientific fraud, the worst any of us have seen in our cumulative 223 years of APS membership. For those who have missed the news we recommend the excellent summary article by Richard Lindzen in the November 30 edition of the Wall Street journal, entitled 'The Climate Science isn’t Settled,' for a balanced account of the situation. It was written by a scientist of unquestioned authority and integrity. ..."
"The principals in this escapade have not denied what they did, but have sought to dismiss it by saying that it is normal practice among scientists. You know and we know that that is simply untrue. Physicists are not expected to cheat."
Bob Austin, Professor of Physics, Princeton
Hal Lewis, emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara
Will Happer, Professor of Physics, Princeton
Larry Gould, Professor of Physics, Hartford
Roger Cohen, former Manager, <b>Strategic Planning, ExxonMobil</b>
"Roger W. Cohen holds a Ph.D. in physics and is a former Manager of Strategic Planning and Programs for ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Co. He has more than forty years experience in the electronics and energy industries. He is a recent recipient of the Otto Schade Prize for Image Quality for research leading to improved digital television, work that was also recognized by an Emmy in 2000. He is currently working with a group of partners on developing and commercializing a technology for extracting carbon dioxide from the air. Roger lives in Durango ..."
If global warming is real, ExxonMobil still has a business -- and everyone who disagrees with these guys is out of a job. If you're just looking at who gets the largest fraction of their income from their beliefs about global warming, it's pretty easy to conclude that the climate scientists have the biggest incentive to lie.
Which illustrates why you shouldn't think that way! When an actor says that vaccines cause autism, the actor is not risking very much; when a doctor denies it, the doctor's livelihood is often at stake. But the doctors, in this case, are right.
So, when do we got a handful of botanists demanding that physicists stop all this unfalsifiable hypothesizing about strings?
EDIT: Really. Five physicists trying to debunk all climate science based on one group's scandal is about as nonsensical as a handful of botanists attacking physics on the basis of string theory. There's just no ideological baggage involved in supporting or denying string theory...
What we're seeing is that there is politics in science, like everything else that people do.
If a former association with ExxonMobil by one of the signatories casts doubt on the motivations of these scientists, then you have to apply the same standard to scientists who are affiliated with or have taking funding from any so-called "green energy" businesses or social progressive political groups
A brilliant response. Though I don't want to sound populistic here, this enterprise we are talking about is the one that created the disaster in Alaska with the oil spill. For those who don't believe in climate change (either the created by man, the created by man + nature or both), they may believe in the consequences of oil spills.
There's nothing new here. They already had skin in this game.