Friday, 23 August 2013

Hide the decline - No, Hide the Evidence

Cartoons by Josh's Judith Curry
Professor Judith Curry in a post titled Scientists and motivated reasoning wrote
One of my colleagues was thinking about publishing a paper that challenges the IPCC interpretation of the previous pause during the 1940s to 1970′s.  My colleague sent a .ppt presentation on this topic to three  colleagues, each of whom is a very respected senior scientist and none of whom have been particularly vocal advocates on the subject of climate change (names are withheld to protect the guilty/innocent).  Each of these scientists strongly encouraged my colleague NOT to publish this paper, since it would only provide fodder for the skeptics.  (my emphasis)
James M Taylor, the managing editor of Environment & Climate News, addressed this in an item Headed 'Respected Senior Scientists' Urge Suppressing Climate Evidence.'
Curry began her article by quoting the following hypothetical scenario from a science ethics article: 
Imagine the following scenario. An atmospheric scientist makes a discovery that seems to challenge a particular model of sea level increase due to global warming. She expects her discovery will be refined through further research, and that, in the end, it will not refute the mainstream view. In the meantime, she wants to avoid giving ammunition to climate skeptics, so she postpones publication.” 

The author of the science ethics article gave an appalling opinion of what the scientist should do. 
The good cause which allegedly motivates much of the research puts the researcher in a special position. It allows them to dispense with essential standards of professional conduct,” the author wrote.
Of the strong encouragement not to publish, Taylor writes:
The Scientific Method requires us to test and challenge our own theories. The Scientific Method requires us to not only test and challenge our own theories, but to encourage others to similarly challenge our theories. Instead, global warming alarmists – even those described as “respected” and not “particularly vocal advocates” on the issue – advocate suppressing scientific studies and hiding scientific evidence whenever it conflicts with their own speculative theories. The fact that all three “respected” and seemingly non-activist scientists sought to suppress scientific evidence is particularly damning to the alarmist cause. 
Those people who pursue sound science respect and advocate critical inquiry and the Scientific Method. Those people who seek to suppress critical inquiry and scientific evidence engage in nothing short of anti-science. 
Kevin Trenberth urged us to hide the decline, now "very respected senior scientists" are urging suppression of scientific papers "damning to the alarmists' cause."

And THEY call us DENIERS?

 Remember these Climategate Quotes:

Phil Jones:
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temperatures to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
Hide the decline; hide contrary evidence.

Michael Mann:
“It would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “Medieval Warm Period”
See Also Jonathan Overpeck's similar desire to hide the Medieval Warm Period (Link)

Phil Jones:
“Mike Mann refuses to talk to these people and I can understand why. They are just trying to find if we’ve done anything wrong.”  
Isn't that the idea behind peer-review, Phil? 

Phil Jones:
“If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.”
Here's a thought. Why not revert to the time when Science really meant Science and we can go back to respecting scientists?

1 comment:

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