Friday, March 12, 2010


The Empire Strikes Back, Even More Feebly

Here is a whinny, tin-eared editorial from the once proud scientific journal Nature. Better guys than I have taken it to task, here, here and here, but let me get my two cents in. The editorial is almost more revealing for what it doesn't say than for what it does say, except in one regard. It quotes Paul Ehrlich, the Stanford scientist (I'm sorry to say) who hasn't been even close to right in any prediction he has made, well, ever, as far as I can tell. Let's go to the editorial itself.

The unguarded exchanges in the UEA e-mail speak for themselves. [the editorial says "the scientific process" worked as it should have, but calls for an investigation nonetheless] Public trust in scientists is based not just on their competence, but also on their perceived objectivity and openness. Researchers would be wise to remember this at all times, even when casually e-mailing colleagues.
Let me translate that for you. Quit revealing how you really think and work, scientists; keep up the fraud (while you 'hide the decline') at all times.

Notice that the editorial did not say "be open and objective, scientists" but merely, "keep on the mask." I find that paragraph very telling indeed.

I have a final question: What the heck is NASA doing spending its time and efforts on a data set of climate info based solely on an apparently cherry picked subset of ground based sensors which have absolutely nothing to do with space, satellites or even aeronautics?

Just asking?


The word "perceived" in the paragraph speaks volumes. It's only important to SEEM objective--not BE objective.
My point exactly. Thanks for the comment.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?