Indian Government Marginalizes UN IPCC

[gturner]

How they're behaving goes to the heart of the quality of the science they've produced. As their e-mails revealed, they were just making shit up.

It did absolutely nothing of the sort... all it did was give ammo for people who believe that slander is an appropriate response to science. Like the sorts of people who open an argument by comparing scientists to nazis.

Dude, it was the scientists who were resorting to slander. They wrote e-mails about it. Seriously, you should read them.

Um, you do realize that the simplistic view I cite was written by the AGW scientists?

You are the one saying that an increase in temperature can only have one affect, in all cases, all the time.

Um, wrong again. It was their papers that firmly established that the trend would be decreased snowfall with higher temperatures due to global warming. Thus increased snowfall cannot be taken as confirmation of global warming. It doesn't refute global warming, but it certainly doesn't confirm it, which is what they are now claiming.

As for open access, yes, that is a requirement for science. Why do you think it's published? Without granting access to data and methods an experiment can't be reproduced, and without independently reproducible results there is no scientific method. It becomes, "Take my word for it. I performed some secret incantations, added my secret catalyst, and successfully transmuted lead into gold. I'd explain how, but it's a secret."

Nonsense. Scientists publish papers and then they get peer reviewed. If someone doesn't agree with the results they can do their own study... and most importantly, the people doing these other studies will be scientists. Not faux-experts making noise on blogs or the people who irresponsibly parrot them. Further, lay-people like you and I wouldn't even understand the implications of the raw data... so what do you want it for exactly?

Once again you show your failure to understand what's been going on. Scientists publish a study. Then, as you said, " If someone doesn't agree with the results they can do their own study..." But to do that they need to know the methods and data used in the first study. Further, many of the requests for the data have come from climate scientists. Real climate scientists. Famous climate scientists. Ones published in the literature. They got stonewalled. They had to resort to Freedom of Information Act requests, which is almost unheard of in science, and then the warmists destroyed data - illegally.

Further, their actions were so scientifically out of bounds that scientists started discussing the demise of peer review. It is supposed to serve as the quality assurance process in the scientific community, but it was undermined to form what got termed "pal review." Science is open to anyone. By closing the door to keep their activities secret, only allowing fellow believers to review each others work, letting authors choose who gets to review their own work, the system was hijacked, transformed into a process with no more error checking than you'd find in religious studies research at a Baptist Bible college.

What all that means is that the output of the process is untrustworthy. It didn't go through the normal scientific process. The deeper people dig the worse the revealed problems become.

 

[ST-One]

My favorite is a program saying global warming is bad because the water will rise up this cliff 25 feet... to a level where there was water 100,000 years ago. The guy was so dumb he didn't see he just proved that the oceans rise and fall and the most humans can do is speed it up.

And 100.000 years ago hundreds of millions of people populated the coastal regions of all the continents too, right?