Another baker's dozen links on the leaked global warming documents

Two entertaining pieces on how the believers are responding:

"Global Warmists Dig in Their Heels over Climategate — Kind of".

"Climategate: how they all squirmed."

NRO contributor Henry Payne gives us two for the price of one: the major media don't like this story any better than they did the story twenty years ago that acid rain wasn't that big a deal. (Remember acid rain?) And he therefore dubs the scandal "Climaquiddick".

Whether the theory is right or wrong, something all reasonable people should agree on is that the Climatic Research Unit's data are a mess and that the unit's unwillingness to make clear and public their data and procedures is terrible. (I posit a White Bronco Theorem: people usually don't act like they have something to hide unless they do.)

Unfortunately for the scientists involved, though, replication is the heart of science. Frank J. Tipler:

I am automatically skeptical of any claim that by its very nature cannot be replicated by other scientists. What keeps scientists honest is not that scientists are more honest than other people — we aren’t — but that we know our colleagues are looking over our shoulders. Everyone is honest when he knows he is being watched.

Eugene Volokh:

My inclination would be to say that data should nearly always be shared. If you share your data, this lets others check the conclusions you draw from the data, as well as verifying the accuracy of the data against other available sources. They might disprove your arguments, or lead you to improve your arguments, or, if they reproduce your results, they might help prove the validity of your arguments. But in either case, science progresses better, and the decisions made based on the science are more reliable, than if you keep the data secret.

So the defense that it is just so taxing to deal with questions about the data won't wash. Especially now that it seems as though a lot of the original data has been destroyed. UPDATE: maybe the data isn't gone after all.

Not surprisingly, with stuff this strange, Wayne and Garth make an appearance: "Top 10 Annoyances in the Climate Change Debate". Ron Rosenbaum expands on number two, the incredible misuse of the term "denialist". Mark Steyn expands on number three, the argument that everything is O.K. because the studies received "peer review".

If the temperature data remains extremely questionable, the next front in the battle will be the question: are glaciers melting?

Last, two worthy--for now--summary statements:

Glenn Reynolds--aka the Blogfather--argues that the controversy illustrates his Army of Davids thesis.

And Christopher Booker at the U.K. Telegraph writes a piece headlined, "Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation".

Comments

[kyle8]

Remember how we were told it was "settled science" ?

Well, destroying your data so no one can replicate your findings is not settled science.

Conspiring to fudge the numbers is not settled science.

Conspiring to undermine sceptics of your work is not settled science.

Insisting on a non existent consensus and shouting down those who disagree is not settled science.