Tuesday, December 1, 2009

Some quick common sense on the leaked Climate Research Unit emails

1. Matthew Yglesias.

2. Will Wilkinson.


LemmusLemmus said...

As someone who is in no position to judge the science, I like Wilkinson's take. It has a very different thrust from Yglesias', which strikes me as disingenious. I don't know what Mr. Imhof said, but Yglesias interprets the vague words about government involvement in science in the post by Pilon, which he links to, in the most unflattering way possible.

As for this...

"what’s the purpose of this conspiracy? (...) what about the scientists themselves? Where’s the upside?"

... I think I can think of one or two reasons why scientists might want to present their research area as the most important one in the world today.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Climategate is more than just the leaked emails. These scientists have also recently admitted, now that they know an investigation will occur, that they don't have any original data. They don't even have copies of it. The same thing has happened in the United States.

Without that data, everything they've published is useless. Which is why they've been trying to hide the fact that they don't have it.

There is no consensus because there is no data. Everything they've worked on has to be done over from scratch.

Anonymous said...

Very worthwhile piece of writing, thank you for this article.
check | have a look | 6 - | 1 | look 5 | ...