Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Doing Science in Court

146 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last

  • Kumara Republic,

    But if it was a publicity stunt, it was bloody poorly organised.

    Agreed. These guys seem increasingly desparate.

    Sounds like they've bragged about their Kyoto-sceptic high-carbon-emitting bazooka... only to fire it backwards.

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 5418 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole,

    This is why I often think the cock-up theory of history is more plausible than the conspiracy theory alternative

    But that's what they want you to think! You know, them.
    I'll be getting my tin-foil hat now ;)

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • SteveH,

    Agreed. These guys seem increasingly desparate.

    They should be getting desperate. The levels of willful ignorance required to deny climate change at this point are pretty high.

    Since Sep 2009 • 444 posts Report Reply

  • R James G Gates,

    No, what they are are piss-poor scientists (in the field of Climatology) who, having failed at the game of arguing in the peer-reviewed literature, think that persuading the public to believe them will grant them their victory anyway.

    Yeah, it often seems like some have been burned by academia at some stage and that therefore academia is the source of the world's problems. And not just those who rail against peer reviewed science, but other fields as well.

    Auckland • Since Sep 2008 • 8 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    This is why I often think the cock-up theory of history is more plausible than the conspiracy theory alternative.

    And there was actually at least as much cock-up in the breaking of Climategate as there was cunning.

    The University of East Anglia's communications department grossly let down the climate research unit. It should have been obvious to anyone there that Phil Jones and his people were working in a uniquely controversial field, and that they didn't have good skills or strategy to deal with that fact.

    And when the story broke ... Jesus wept. Cindy Baxter of Greenpeace NZ started getting media phone calls, so called the UoEA comms office to find out what was going on. They told her it was a Friday and they'd deal with it next week. That being, after the world's Sunday papers had gone to press.

    Has there been any more thorough analysis of the university's communications performance? I'd be interested to read it.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22754 posts Report Reply

  • Ross Mason,

    This "debate" sounds eerily like the Nuclear Winter debate of the 80s. The idea was greeted with skepticism from many corners - especially the "military industrial complex". It was not til Gorbachev mentioned inthe 80's:

    "The environment has been greatly damaged by the nuclear arms race. Models made by Russian and American scientists showed that a nuclear war would result in a nuclear winter that would be extremely destructive to all life on Earth; the knowledge of that was a great stimulus to us, to people of honor and morality, to act in that situation."

    Ref sourced from Wiki above and here

    Upper Hutt • Since Jun 2007 • 1588 posts Report Reply

  • Ross Mason,

    Bugger. Hit post reply. Continued:

    Wiki makes the statement "In contrast to the obvious direct dangers of nuclear warfare, there is no clear evidence that the indirect dangers of nuclear winter made any substantial difference to policy".

    It certainly was not clear from the west's side anyway.

    Did it take the threat of instant annihilation to bring about the withdrawing from the brink by both sides? And the demise of the USSR? - I always wondered if the USSRians blinked first after this scenario was raised.

    The "not quite so instant death" of climate warming does not have the same reality show feel about it does it.

    Upper Hutt • Since Jun 2007 • 1588 posts Report Reply

  • Ross Mason,

    Hah!!!! I had heard a story about the political leanings and age and Politics of the deniers. And did a search for it on Google. But...

    Found a cracker blog of the Relativity Deniers of the 20's!!!! Nothing changes!!

    Especially Einsteins top quote!!!!

    “This world is a strange madhouse. Currently, every coachman and every waiter is debating whether relativity theory is correct. Belief in this matter depends on political party affiliation.”

    And the last sentence:

    "Waiting until all the polls line up is a gutless dereliction of duty.”

    Upper Hutt • Since Jun 2007 • 1588 posts Report Reply

  • Jane Pearson,

    The New Scientist 31 July 2010 has an interview ("Climategate scientist breaks his silence") with scientist Phil Jones and pro-vice-chancellor of research Trevor Davies from University of East Anglia which discusses the email controversy at the Climate Research Unit and gives insight into how the situation arose. In addition there is a letter from Trevor Davies on Page 27.

    Another short report on Page 5, "Climategate data sets to be made public", refers to the independent Muir Russell review that said the "difficulties of integrating information from emails and on the servers of the different institutions contributed to the accusations of malpractice at the centre of last November's climategate storm." Only this last short report is available in full on the New Scientist website unless perhaps you were accessing it though your local library.

    All this is a bit beyond me and needs someone with the right sort of research and detective skills to track down how all this fits together.

    Since Feb 2010 • 28 posts Report Reply

  • Carol Stewart,

    According to Brian Rudman:

    The coalition isn't the first to try to fight global warming in the courts. In September 2008, Queenstown property developer Basil Walker tried unsuccessfully to get an injunction against the Labour Government's Emissions Trading Scheme becoming law.

    Arguing against "the theory of global warming", he filed Act MP Muriel Newman's article "Exposing the Climate Change Agenda" as part of his supporting evidence. Justice Denis Clifford threw the application out as unconstitutional.

    Wellington • Since Jul 2008 • 821 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    Wow. Citing an article by Muriel Newman to try and win a case over science. That's really awesomely numbskulled.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22754 posts Report Reply

  • Neil Graham,

    Relativity Deniers of the 20's!

    Well at least nobody does that anymore.

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 118 posts Report Reply

  • Ben Austin,

    Yes but I think the author of that page is trying to develop the Grand Unified Theory of Relativity and Cultural Relativism

    London • Since Nov 2006 • 1019 posts Report Reply

  • Geoff Lealand,

    For those who weren't at the Media 7 taping last night, do watch it tonight, for refreshing perspectives on the media and science.

    Screen & Media Studies, U… • Since Oct 2007 • 2537 posts Report Reply

  • David Winter,

    Has there been any more thorough analysis of the university's communications performance? I'd be interested to read it.

    Not an analysis, but George Monbiot gives an amusing (and depressing at the same time) account of the media strategy employed by the CRU in this interview.

    "with very exceptions the universities have just left these guys to swing"

    Dunedin • Since Aug 2010 • 10 posts Report Reply

  • Peter Calder,

    Vodafone's lamentable inability to operate a reliable email service didn't help either.

    So it's not just me. I have had badly compromised email service all week - including right now - and flaky service at least one day a week ever since Vodafone bought ihug. I've baled and gone to another ISP after 17 years with V. This is a market leader?





















    .

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 66 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel,

    if yer not rapt, bail... a band on the run!

    I've baled and gone to another ISP ...

    ...ya wanna stay away from that evil bundling!!
    (there's always strings attached...)

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7889 posts Report Reply

  • James Bremner,

    Late to the party, but never mind.

    It will be interesting to see how this case turns out, but it is getting to the point of being an academic exercise only at this point.

    I am sure people in NZ have caught up with the fact that Harry Reid dropped Cap and Tax legislation off the Senate's agenda for the rest of the year, which means that the US will not have any kind of climate change legislation for the foreseeable future. The Dems will lose at least 4 or 5 seats in the Senate, maybe a few more, which with a sizable block of Dems from coal states (either coal mining states such as WV or with predominantly coal fired power stations, like Wisconsin) means that there won’t be anywhere near the required 60 votes for cloture in the Senate, so no climate bill. With no climate bill in the US, why would any other countries immolate their economies?

    http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20100804/OPINION/100809892?p=1&tc=pg

    Two takes from either side of the argument on the significantly reduced emphasis that AGW got at the recent G20.

    http://www.globalwarmingisreal.com/blog/2010/06/30/toronto-g20-summit-marked-by-inaction-on-climate-change/

    http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/07/02/lawrence-solomon-catastrophism-collapses/

    The tide has turned on AGW. The public around the world buy it less and less, and politicians are catching up with that.

    NOLA • Since Nov 2006 • 353 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    In other news, public starting to believe earth flat after concerted campaign - so we must stop the tyranny of its depictions as round. Un-informed mobs rule.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19686 posts Report Reply

  • HORansome,

    Yes, James, it would be terrible to damage our economy[1] just to save future generations from environmental catastrophe.

    1. Except, of course, we don't have to damage the economy to do that. We just have to hit those efficiencies we were told the market would provide us with anyway.

    Tāmaki Makaurau • Since Sep 2008 • 441 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    This is the most sensible thing I have heard on the subject...
    From Pundit

    Ralph Sims on February 20, 2010

    ...if Tom and his ICSC colleagues are utimately proved right (even against all the scientific evidence as I see it), then many of the mitigation solutions being proposed make good sense anyway in terms of energy security, improved health, sustainable development and growth, employment prospects etc etc. So we win regardless.

    If Tom and ICSC are wrong, but we take no adaptation measures to combat the perceived risks until it is too late, then we lose.

    Does ICSC really want to take that risk? I certainly am not prepared to.

    The point is quite clear. Whether or not climate change is caused by Humans or not, greater efficiencies in energy use are the way to go, regardless.

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • HORansome,

    Communism, Steve, communism.

    Tāmaki Makaurau • Since Sep 2008 • 441 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    But the wrong people make money if we say insulate homes and hot water cyclinders as opposed to building new power stations or roads. It's just not right.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19686 posts Report Reply

  • James Bremner,

    HORansome wrote
    Yes, James, it would be terrible to damage our economy [1] just to save future generations from environmental catastrophe.

    1. Except, of course, we don't have to damage the economy to do that. We just have to hit those efficiencies we were told the market would provide us with anyway.

    Yes, that's right, environmental catastrophe is certain isn't it? Its peer reviewed, it must be so!! Bollocks..

    There are so many reasons to be skeptical about AGW, apart from the corruption of the peer review process, refusing to comply with FOI requests, and the delightful candor of the Harryreadme.txt file we all found out about from the e-mails leaked from the East Anglia CRU. Some of these reasons include the quotes at the link below from a variety of climate change blowhards. While I don't necessarily agree with the introduction, and I have read many of these quotes before, seeing them all in one place at one time is quite disturbing. More than enough justification for maintaining a very healthy skepticism toward AGW and anyone or any organization that promotes it as anything other than an uncertain theory.

    So many good quotes, hard to pick the best ones, here is just one of many:

    Quote by Richard Benedik, former U.S./UN bureaucrat: “A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect.” Oh great, yes, we must act now!!

    http://davegj13.wordpress.com/2009/10/14/the-climate-change-scam-quotes-from-the-idiot-left/

    But the point of my original post was regardless of ones’ position on AGW, any kind of significant action, let alone a full blown cap and tax regime is rapidly approaching zero, like the price trend at the CCX:

    http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/

    And of course it is all the market’s fault!! Not sure how you get there, Horansome. Yes, all the problems of the world can be blamed on those damned free markets can’t they?

    NOLA • Since Nov 2006 • 353 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    There are so many reasons to be skeptical about AGW, apart from the corruption of the peer review process, refusing to comply with FOI requests, and the delightful candor of the Harryreadme.txt file we all found out about from the e-mails leaked from the East Anglia CRU.

    Ah James, you're so reliable with the talking points. Fortunately, science is assessed on evidence rather than truthiness.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22754 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.