« Iain Dale's Huge Annual Election | Main | Hurrah for Nonna »

Pearce on Climategate - A force for good

Climategate was 'a game-changer' in science reporting, say climatologists | Environment | The Guardian
Fred Pearce
Science has been changed forever by the so-called "climategate" saga, leading researchers have said ahead of publication of an inquiry into the affair – and mostly it has been changed for the better.
"The release of the emails was a turning point, a game-changer," said Mike Hulme, professor of climate change at the University of East Anglia. "The community has been brought up short by the row over their science. Already there is a new tone. Researchers are more upfront, open and explicit about their uncertainties, for instance."
And there will be other changes, said Hulme. The emails made him reflect how "astonishing" it was that it had been left to individual researchers to police access to the archive of global temperature data collected over the past 160 years. "The primary data should have been properly curated as an archive open to all." He believes that will now happen....
The veteran Oxford science philosopher Jerome Ravetz says the role of the blogosphere in revealing the important issues buried in the emails means it will assume an increasing role in scientific discourse. "The radical implications of the blogosphere need to be better understood." Curry too applauds the rise of the "citizen scientist" triggered by climategate, and urges scientists to embrace them.

But greater openness and engagement with their critics will not ensure that climate scientists have an easier time in future, warns Hulme. Back in the lab, a new generation of more sophisticated computer models is failing to reduce the uncertainties in predicting future climate, he says – rather, the reverse. "This is not what the public and politicians expect, so handling and explaining this will be difficult."

Comments

This is Hulme invoking his post normal science theories, and adding Ravetz as well. For a good assassination of Hulme, (he really is dangerous with his softee softee, catchee monkey approach)and Ravetz, this is a really excellent piece with some very good comments: http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/climate-change-and-the-death-of-science/ It should be read by everyone interested in this charade and particularly those who are taken in by the new sanitised Hulme.

I posted this list and summary of Tyndall Press Releases, whilst Hulme was running the show: http://www.scribd.com/doc/26738398/Tyndall-Press-Statements

Here's an example: "This is the major challenge laid down today (8 April 2003) by Professor Mike Hulme, a senior climate change scientist at an international conference on Global climate change and biodiversity at the University of East Anglia, Norwich. “Climate change will certainly continue. It will probably accelerate and we could see unprecedented changes in the Earth’s climate over the coming years and decades.These changes in such a powerful influence on ecological development will introduce new challenges for the way we conserve our natural world."

He was the only one of the climategate crew to welcome the appointment of Pachauri as head of IPCC, but then he had been courting his support when pushing for the Tyndall Centre, with its £2million a year initial budget. One of the CRU e-mails has this from him to S. Gupta at Teri:

"If UEA were to succeed in its bid for the Centre, then it would seek to develop strong links with other institutions abroad in order to strengthen its own intellectual base and, through such links, to contribute to the development and implementation of the science. We would see TERI as one of these Supporting International Organisations."

At the time he was a Reader in Climatology, one down from Professor, but he became the Founding Director of one the biggest propaganda outfits in modern times. he has done quite nicely thank you out of climate change as he acknowledged in one of his books: "ask not what you can do for climate change, ask what climate change can do for you".

"Back in the lab, a new generation of more sophisticated computer models is failing to reduce the uncertainties in predicting future climate, he says – rather, the reverse."

What happened to "the science is settled" and rule of the "consensus?" Oh, wait, that was when "climate science" was not like any other in that it was OK to destroy data and not publish your methodology. Or assumptions: when Mann conceded that the Roman and MEdieval Warm periods existed, he said the data was only good for the Northern Hemisphere but there was not enough data to know what was going on in the Southern - implying he simply assumed - without explanation or even noting - that for every tenth degree increase in the North there may/must have been a corresponding tenth degree drop in the South and vice-versa, allowing him to show a steady graph line for the total with no peaks or valleys.

"a new generation of more sophisticated computer models is failing to reduce the uncertainties in predicting future climate"

Looks like they STILL can't get their models to use history to predict yesterday's weather -- and until they do, coin tossage will be as good a predictive method as any other.

Post a comment