V sredo 14. julija smo na straneh Pozitivk lahko brali članek, da so v Veliki Britaniji oprostili znanstvenike iz Univerze East Anglija. Znanstvenike, ki so bili pred novim letom pod drobnogledom javnosti v aferi Climategate.
Vsi, ki smo malo bolj podrobno pogledali v vso zadevo, se seveda takšnim zaključkom lahko samo smejemo. Očitno je, da avtorji tega članka niti približno niso brali elekronske pošte, ki je pricurljala v javnost. Nič ne de, jo boste pa lahko sami. Spodaj je zgolj nekaj izvlečkov iz analize omenjenih e-sporočil, ki jo je napisal dr. John P, Costella (besedilo je v angleščini).
Iz uvodnega dela:
...we need to infer these measurements, by counting tree rings, or digging up tubes of ice. The science of each of these disciplines is well-defined and rigorous, and there are many good scientists working in these fields. But the real difficulty is the “stitching together” of all of these results, in a way that allows answers to the fundamental questions: How much effect has mankind had on the temperature of the planet? And how much difference would it make if we did things differently?
It is at this “stitching together” layer of science—one could call it a “meta-discipline”— that the principles of the scientific method have broken down. Reading through the Climate-gate emails, one can see members of that community usually those with slightly different experience and wisdom than the power-brokers questioning (as they should) this “stitching together” process, particularly with regard to the extremely subtle mathematical methods that need to be used to try to extract answers.
Now, these mathematical and statistical methods are completely within my own domain of expertise; and I can testify that the criticisms are sensible, carefully thought-out, and completely valid; these are good scientists, asking the right questions.
So what reception do they get? Instead of embracing this diversity of knowledge— thanking them for their experience (no one knows everything about everything) and using that knowledge to improve their own calculations—these power-brokers of climate science instead ignore, fob off, ridicule, threaten, and ultimately black-ball those who dare to question the methods that they—the power-brokers, the leaders—have used. And do not be confused: I am here talking about those scientists within their own camps, not the “skeptics” which they dismiss out of hand.
This is not “climate science”, it is climate ideology; it is the Church of Climatology.
Sledi nekaj e-sporočil (v navednicah), besedilo izven navednic je komentar dr. Costelle.
July 11, 1996: email 0837094033
Phil Jones has apparently become aware of a climate skeptic in the United Kingdom—seemingly the first, from his words:
"Britain seems to have found its Pat Michaels / Fred Singer / Bob Balling / Dick Lindzen (American climate skeptics). Our population is only 25% of yours so we only get 1 for every 4 you have. His name in case you should come across him is Piers Corbyn. He is nowhere near as good as a couple of yours and he’s an utter prat but he’s getting a lot of air time at the moment."
September 19, 1996: email 0843161829
Two days after the previous exchange, Gary Funkhouser reports on his attempts to obtain anything from the data that could be used to sell the message of climate change:
»I really wish I could be more positive about the … material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. … I don’t think it’d be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have—they just are what they are … I think I’ll have to look for an option where I can let this little story go as it is.«
November 22, 1996: email 0848679780
Geoff Jenkins was head of climate change prediction at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, part of the United Kingdom’s Met(eorological) Office (national weather service). He writes to Phil Jones:
"Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures, with the early release of information (via Australia), “inventing” the December monthly value, letters to Nature, etc., etc.?
I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year, simply to avoid a lot of wasted time."
November 25, 1997: email 0880476729
Tom Wigley roundly criticises the eleven scientists seeking endorsement of their Statement:
"...When scientists color the science with their own personal views or make categorical statements without presenting the evidence for such statements, they have a clear responsibility to state that that is what they are doing. You have failed to do so. Indeed, what you are doing is, in my view, a form of dishonesty more subtle but no less egregious than the statements made by the greenhouse skeptics …. I find this extremely disturbing."
May 6, 1999: email 0926026654
Phil Jones writes to Mike Mann,
"...You may think Keith or I have reviewed some of your papers but we haven’t. I’ve reviewed Ray’s and Malcolm’s—constructively, I hope, where I thought something could have been done better. I also know you’ve reviewed my paper with Gabi Hegerl very constructively."
This is a remarkable discussion for two senior scientists to be having. The “peer review” process for papers submitted to academic journals is, in general, completely anonymous, for the same reason that voting at elections is anonymous: to prevent intimidation or bullying. For these scientists to be surreptitiously trying to determine who the reviewers of their papers are immediately tells us two things: that the practitioners have absolutely no respect for the principles of scientific integrity and objectivity...
May 19, 1999: email 0927145311
Tom Wigley writes to Mike Hulme and Mike MacCracken, regarding a chain of emails discussing climate models:
"I’ve just read the emails of May 14 onwards regarding carbon dioxide. I must say that I am stunned by the confusion that surrounds this issue. Basically, I and MacCracken are right and Felzer, Schimel and (to a lesser extent) Hulme are wrong. There is absolutely, categorically no doubt about this."
Mike Hulme responds:
"I still have a problem … making sense of what the Met(eorological) Office Hadley Centre have published …"
Tom Wigley replies:
"Yes, I am aware of the confusion surrounding what the Met(eorological) Office Hadley Centre did and why. It is even messier than you realize. … The Hadley people have clearly screwed things up, but their “errors” don’t really matter given all of the uncertainties. I didn’t mention this because I thought that opening up that can of worms would confuse people even more."
- - -
Torej, že teh nekaj e-sporočil nam razjasni vsaj nekaj stvari:
- Svoje znanstvene kolege skeptike so v korespondenci brez zadržkov in spoštovanja označevali za tepce
- Znanstveniki so si prizadevali za vsako ceno, da bi lahko iz rezultatov svojih raziskav dokazali, da se ozračje segreva
- Želeli so vplivati na javno mnenje o globalnem segrevanju in debatirali, na kakšen najbolj učinkoviti način bi to dosegli
- Niso spoštovali ustaljene znanstvene prakse, da se ne razkriva, kdo od vrstnikov znanstvenikov je pregledal in kritično ocenil znanstvena dognanja (peer review)
- Njihovi rezultati (vsaj nekateri) jo nedvomno napačni
- Nekateri znanstveniki so pričeli dvomiti o praksah svojih kolegov, da znanost barvajo s svojimi osebnimi pogledi
Celotno analizo z vsemi e-sporočili lahko preberete tukaj:
Članek tudi omenja sledečo izjavo: »Nismo našli niti enega dokaza o ravnanju, ki bi spodkopavalo zaključke predvidevanj Medvladnega panela za podnebne spremembe (IPCC)«
Vedeti je potrebno, da je IPCC je medvladni panel, znanstvenike tja postavljajo vlade in ne strokovne ustanove. Kako 'strokovna' je ta skupina pove dejstvo, da ima njen predsedujoči Rajendra K. Pachauri doktorat iz industrijskega inženiringa, torej nobene zveze s klimatsko znanostjo.
IPCC je tekom let v svojih poročilih načrtno izbrisal nenavadno toplo obdobje v srednjem veku (medieval warm period). Na grafu zadnjega poročila ga ni več zaslediti:
Članek prihaja iz stvani Umanotere, slovenske fundacije za trajnostni razvoj. Rad bi vas zgolj spomnil na dejstvo, da je direktorica te ustanove g. Vida O. Wagner v omizju na temu klimatskih sprememb parkrat ostala brez razlage ter argumenta nasproti dokazom skeptika g. Miša Alkalaja. Video si lahko ogledate tule:
Torej, kje se nahajamo? Očitno je, da je z IPCC ter 'dokazi' o antropogenem globalnem segrevanju nekaj narobe. Če morajo znanstveniki prikrivati izsledke pred svojimi vrstniki svoje, če jih skušajo ponarejati, potem tu nekaj ni v redu. Če bi imeli poštene namene in res delovali v dobrobit vsega človeštva, potem to seveda ne bi bilo potrebno.
Po mojem mnenju je skrajno nedopustno, da mednarodni pogovori, ki naj bi obdavčili industrijo in posledično vse nas in to sredi gospodarske recesije, slonijo na takšni znanosti. Kakršnakoli že resnica o klimatskih spremembah, naj bo znanost transparentna, poštena in naj v debato vključi znastvenike iz različnih vej in različnih pogledov.
Vzemite si malo časa, pojdite skozi elektronska sporočila ter presodite sami.
V sredo 14. julija smo na straneh Pozitivk lahko brali članek, da so v Veliki Britaniji oprostili znanstvenike iz Univerze East Anglija. Znanstvenike, ki so bili pred novim letom pod drobnogledom javnosti v aferi Climategate. 
