[Dustin T.]

Dustin Tenney  asked the Naked Scientists:
   
Dr Smith,

I know you have talked about climate change and how you are in agreement with many scientists that much of the global warming issues are man made; but I have not heard you talk about the controversial event going on about the emails that were obtained from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in the UK.  

It was alleged that the research results were "changed" to get the answer that many were looking for.
 
newbielink:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident [nonactive]
 
Politics aside; What do you think this has to say about the quality of research going on, the power that scientists and researchers seem to have, and the ethics of scientists and researchers of today?
 
_______
 
 
Also, since the global warming event has been so prevalent and people seem to be very passionate about it, (I heard it could even effect the America's and the UK's taxes) I thought it might be interesting to hear your and Dave's thoughts on the subject.
 
I am a big fan of all the newbielink:http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/podcasts/ [nonactive]; keep up the great work.
 
Thank You,
 
Dustin Tenney
Des Moines, Iowa, USA

What do you think?

[Karsten]

I tend to trust more large groups of scientists. Professional and large science organizations that make sure that no nonsense is published more than once. American Association for the Advancement of Science for instance. Individual scientists may have too much of an agenda or bias.

[litespeed]

Dustin - I don't, and you should not, trust any scientist farther then you can throw a Polar Bear. If nothing else, routine history has shown the parochial nature of science itself. Specifically, there has often been an elite group of Eminent Experts who stand in the way of progress. The list is damned near endless.

Further, the issue gets complicated because some of them are exactly correct in some of their points of view and entirely wrong on others. One primary example is, I believe, Hoyle who died only in 2001. He was correct heavier elements of the Universe were produced in stars. However, I believe to his dying day he rejected The Big Bang. In fact, the term Big Bang was coined by Hoyle as an insult to that very theory.

Accordingly, whenever you hear some scientist claim the matter is closed, you can damn near take it to the bank it is not closed at all. This is the case with Climate Change. Why do you think the term Global Warming has been changed to Climate Change? Because those who have staked their careers on Warming are now hedging their bets. And with good reason.

The epitome of this nonsense is the infamous Hockey Stick graph that shows a thousand years of near constant climate with a sudden up tick during the industrial revolution. I am not convinced it is not a subconscious but deliberate creation by a true believer. In some way, he simply eliminated the Midieval Warming AND the Little Ice Age right out of existence.

As for the East Anglia Mess. I present it as Exhibit A.  These Eminent Experts have a lot at stake. They and their Eminent Colleagues have run the GW debate for decades. Then all of a sudden their preternatural models suddenly fail them because they can not explain recent cooling. First order of business: 1) delete any data that might embarrass their pontifical eminences; 2) organize an inquisition to ensure counter arguements are never published. The Bastards.

But this is routine. Continental Drift? You must be drunk. Natural selection? Selection of WHAT? Solar centric universe (delay publication till AFTER I am dead). Roque Waves? Once in ten thousand years. SETI: It is a certaintly we will find a signal in A)five years; B) ten years; C; twenty years since 1980.

There must be millions of planetary system conducive to advanced civilizations; actual sample data of three hundred separate solar systems absolutely contradict the proposition. Badly.

Etc Etc. Don't get snow plowed by wishful thinking.