Remember this is stolen data. We have no way of knowing what has happened to it since it was hacked. We do not know how much it has been manipulated or even if any of it is forged. On that basis alone, it is unlikely to be admissible as evidence in a court of law.

In fact, what AGW skeptics have pounced on gleefully amounts to a few cherry-picked quotes from a vast mass of data. Far from being a smoking gun, it is not much smoke and no fire.

Of course, it is great fun when your opponents emails are hacked and held up to public ridicule but what if it were your own?

Suppose we had the last ten years worth of emails from a denialist group or just the last ten years of Stephen McIntyre’s emails. What juicy morsels do you think we would find there if we looked closely enough?

This does not alter the fact that there are some troubling attitudes and practices suggested by the emails apart from a not-unnatural exasperation with intransigent critics.

Scientists should not be in the business of trying to get unsympathetic editors fired from journals. There is, however, no evidence that they went beyond vague threats of action and actually did anything about it.

Scientists should not be trying to prevent the publication of papers except through the peer-review process. If a bad paper gets published its failings will be exposed over time anyway.

Scientists should not be trying to have papers excluded from official reports other than through the normal review process. In fact, the two papers which were complained of did get included in the IPCC report in spite of the opposition.

Scientists should not be discarding raw data sets, especially in such a controversial area. Even if they were assembled from other sources and those other sources still exist, the fact remains that independent replication of research is a cornerstone of the scientific method and that depends on the original data and computer code being made available to whoever wants to use it.

Does this make any difference to the case for anthropogenic global warming? Proponents argue that it does not depend exclusively on CRU research, that there are other lines of evidence which are solid and cannot be ignored.

There may be no easy answers. It may be that there will be no incontrovertible and conclusive evidence short of waiting for disaster to happen or not. The problem is that if we wait until the catastrophe is upon us, it will be too late to do anything about it.

Shouting “Sorry, we got it wrong!” just before we all drown would be small comfort.

If you don’t think this represents a wider problem, then I really think you are misinformed.

My lack of knowledge is always a possibility. However, if I were to ask to be more informed, would I get more examples beyond the five Expelled cases? (Behe, after all, still retains his tenure and his book sold, and there are lots of ad hominem attacks in all directions.)

If I were to try and decide between:

[A] Science is rife with corruption, agendas, and can’t be trusted, or

[B] Science is generally above board but occasional bad things happen.

How would I decide based on your evidence? How would I tease out the alternative cases of researchers who successfully challenged the status quo and had their theories inserted into the mainstream?

Well the scientists pushing global warming/ climate change should tell the truth that no one knows what the Earth’s atmospheric temperature should be.

No one knows how much ice should be found on the pole regions.

No one knows how many glaciers should be on the planet.

No one knows how much CO2 is too much.

I guess too much truth isn’t a good thing for global alarmists…

Graham,

I’m not certain if you understand some of the truth claims in scripture. Not all scriptural claims are absolute; some like science knowledge are provisional: “If you do such and such, such will happen.”

The Proverbs tell us that certain behavior leads to certain consequences, yet it does not seem to suggest that such consequences will befall every being who engages in the behavior. There are generalizations in scripture, which are truthful, but conditional. Yet there is also truth that is absolute – such as the character and attributes of God.

So scientific truth would seem to mimic some of the ancient truth of the Bible. If certain conditions are met, we can expect certain results – but this does not always dictate the results. Statistically, the results are likely. Is that not scientific as well? Do you not believe that scripture itself makes predictions that are statistically true? Does divorce, for example, often lead to negative consequences? Is the consequence for murder likely to be negative? Do people who give to others often benefit from such behavior?

If everything in scripture was intended to be absolute, then what would be the purpose of faith? If we believe that scripture maps out our destinies, then no religion based on them would make any worthwhile sense.

You can only extrapolate if there is evidence to support that leap. You have one example of problems in climate science. You have no evidence that this means other climate scientists are acting inappropriately, nor does it say anything about physicists, or sociologists, or any other group. Yet the public should be skeptical of all pronouncements.

If you’ve followed this blog for any time at all it should be pretty clear that there is a problem. Anyone, scientist or otherwise, who questions, criticizes or otherwise disparages the Dogma of Darwin is excoriated, marginalized and subjected to all sorts of ad hominem attacks. There’s way more than the 5 cases cited in the movie Expelled of professional scientists losing tenure, denied promotion and even losing their jobs for merely questioning the Dogma of Darwin. I already Richard Sternberg. That particular case was very much like the present Climategate situation in that e-mails of a similar nature against Sternberg surfaced. Guillarmo Gonzales was an astronomer, Sternberg a biologist, Beckwith a Philosophy prof, and there are other examples from other disciplines as well. Not all have been publicly documented. In some cases I know of personally, those involved didn’t want to come forward out of fear of losing position, promotion, tenure or what have you.

If you don’t think this represents a wider problem, then I really think you are misinformed. Why should Richard Dawkins get away with making a public statement about anyone who even expresses doubts about evolution of the sort I quoted in the OP, which he wrote, by the way, some 20 years ago! Yet, who of his peers took him to task for making such an UNscientific pronouncement? I know of none. The very fact that he, along with several other of the more widely read authors/lecturers continually make such claims is itself evidence of a huge problem of the sort we’re seeing in Climategate.

Just look at how Mike Behe was treated when he published Darwin’s Black Box. How dare he question Darwinism!! How dare he suggest that irreducibly complexity is not explainable by Darwinism. Never mind the fact that some 15 years have passed since he published his book and it is still the case that there is not one single peer reviewed research study that provides a detailed, testable model of how evolution accounts for any of the IC systems Behe discussed in his book. And Behe contiually gets attacked, marginalized and otherwise excoriated by scientists. We certainly don’t want the general public to know that there is significant contrary evidence to the Darwinian story!

How can you pretend that there is no wider problem when the problem has been going on for years? The climategate scandal has finally made it more clear to a wider public.

Is it ALL of Science? No, of course not. Lots of discoveries are reported every day, and are done so with integrity. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t any problem or at all, or that it ought to be ignored, or that its only in a couple of areas, so why be bothered. That’s one of the reasons this blog exists…to bring these to light.

“What is the problem with this statement, Graham? Are you suggesting that we cannot learn anything from history? From logic, which science depends on? Or from our own senses? Are you stating that unless it’s tested by the scientific method, it’s not truthful?”

Barb you are entering into the very interesting question of “what is science?”

I have said before there are a lot of seemingly simple things that are not easy to define like “life” or “consciousness”- and you can add science to that list.

When we use evidence to theorize about how lifeforms came to be- whether it evolved or what have you- we are certainly engaging in science at some level- regardless of how weak our speculations, hypotheses, theories and ideas are. so long as they accord with the honest search for truth and are based on solid data.

Science has to do with discovery and better understanding of things- and of course in light of honesty and truth. Which is of course the problem with climategate- which is that one of the main groups that claims to be scientifically supporting or proving AGW- and have been sighted by groups claiming the science supports AGW- have been caught acting conspiratorially – or at least in collusion- regarding how they go about presenting their real data- and even skewing the real data to fit their desired results and agenda.

So your point about history- philosophy, religion and personal experience are very good ones. While these enterprises may not fallow a rigorous definition of scientific method they certainly are at least considered soft sciences- and they contribute to the convention of science. In fact it is often philosopher and reasoning that validates a scientific theory beyond data. So this also means that a persona’s biases and agenda need to accord with a proper and honest use of reason- so that their work will likely accord with truth.

But it is interesting to consider history as an example – and climate science as another- and compare them to an ideal of what science should be-

In both cases we relay on very questionable data. In history old writings have to be taken carefully and on a certain amount of faith because many things reported are often impossible to verify- and archeological discoveries have to be taken very generally because they are often very difficult to know for close to certain a great deal about.

In climate science we not only have to be skeptical of our ability to correctly record the relevant variables- but we must be even more careful about accepting our speculative models when, aside from the questionable quality of the data- they often do not have adequate computational theories backing up their projections and results.

So the fact that the climategate scientists admit in their confidential emails that the lack of warming is unaccountable by their data- mean that when they still choose to try and cover up these scientific truths- and even go into how to propagate the AGW theory, and how to eliminate critical perspectives from the peer review- that we must demand a change and audit of the AGW science- as well as take their prior statements with a grain of salt.

It is amazing how much AGW is like Darwinism.

So science is a convention that draws on many different domains- but the one thing that is universal about it is that it must accord with being honest and truthful- and now thanks to cliategate it is no longer just speculation that climatologists are pushing a theory unsupported by the data-

I am reminded of the words of Patrick Michaels who said that these emails are not a smoking gun. They are a mushroom cloud.

Sure, there are other ways to discover things, but I presumed that DM was referring to Science as a materialistic process, .vs. some divine influence or something. Hell, when you look for your car keys, you are practising Science.

Regarding the truth of stuff such as the mass of the carbon atom, no, it is not an ultimate truth like biblical revealed truth (claims to be). ALL facts in Science (such as the mass of an atom) are provisional and could change tomorrow. We have a high level of confidence in them (weve probably got Carbon right) but its not 100%. There is no great Science god in the sky that gives us a passing grade.

On climategate, Rep. Sensenbrenner was deflated by John Holdren and Jane Lubchenco. Claiming the problems at CRU are small compared to the ubiquitous proof from other scientists.

See Obama science advisers grilled over hacked e-mails

Why isn’t the science to counter global warming claims at the fingertips of someone like Sensenbrenner?