Wednesday, 22 February 2012

Will the real Peter Gleik stand up.

Harpo Marx? No someone funnier! Peter Gleik.
Image Wikipedia.
Peter Gleik is a scientist who works at the Pacific Institute in Oakland, California, which he co-founded in 1987. On Huff Post Green he wrote of the Integrity  of Scientists. Yes, that's right Gleik wrote a Brief Lesson in the Integrity of Scientists. Gleik obviously threw that integrity out the window when he engineered FAKEgate.
All scientists are, by definition, skeptics. Hence the motto of the Royal Society of London, one of the world's oldest scientific academies (founded in 1660), Nullius in verba: "Take nobody's word." Skeptics and good scientists question and change their minds when presented with competing and convincing evidence. Indeed, scientific reputations are made by identifying flaws in current thinking, developing and testing new hypotheses, and by being right, not wrong. And while all scientists (and all people) make mistakes, good ones acknowledge their mistakes, correct them, and refine our knowledge. Bad ones dig in their heels, defending a faulty paradigm to the bitter end.
While a huge amount of effort is put into debunking the bad science promoted by climate deniers, scientists work to correct errors in understanding about climate on all sides.
After writing that all scientists are sceptics, he had backed himself into a corner. He therefore had to tag sceptics with the derogatory term deniers. Why should there be "a huge amount put into debunking" climate sceptics? Why not apply the scientific method to the output of the sceptics?

He then goes on to say that climate deniers, who promulgate error after error (from misreporting satellite data, to misrepresenting historical temperature records, to misinterpreting paleoclimatic data, to much more) do not do the same - they simply deny the evidence (hence the term).

Misrepresenting historical temperature records?

Would you believe NASA's temperature record?

NASA was able to put a man on the moon, but the space agency can’t tell you what the temperature was when it did. By its own admission, NASA’s temperature records are in even worse shape than the besmirched Climate-gate data.
But NASA is somewhat less confident, having quietly decided to tweak its corrections to the climate data earlier this month.

Read how "as more and more of these temperature data manipulations are coming to light, it's obvious that the "unprecedented" worldwide global warming is the result of unprecedented worldwide scientific dishonesty" - here.

In New Zealand there was a similar story
The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), among other organisations and scientists, allege that, along with the rest of the world, we have been heating up for over 100 years. But now, a simple check of publicly-available information proves these claims wrong. In fact, New Zealand’s temperature has been remarkably stable for a century and a half. So what’s going on?"  Researchers find records adjusted to represent 'warming' when raw data show temperatures have been stable.

Well, Peter Gleik, you have confessed your own lack of integrity. Now how about a bit of honesty correcting some of your writings.

No comments:

Post a comment

All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!