It's exactly parallel to creationists taking some instance of one scientist mistaking some fossil early in the century and milking that for decades to disprove evolution.
However, there are other groups that are conflated with the straw dog group.
Examples:
There are people who claim climate models are wrong, as they have lost all predictive ability over the past ten years. They are correct that these models have proven to be bad models; they are incorrect in assuming, as bad models, this necessarily means temperature will not be as high. It is also possible that the temperature could be higher than forecast. It may refute their estimations, but not offering a better model weakens their argument.
There are others who claim that not only is the evidence overwhelmingly in favor of global warming, but anthropogenic warming. However, they claim that the costs of adopting "do anything to stop this" measures are ill-advised. The costs would be too high, they don't take into account any benefits, and they completely discount the emergence of new technologies.
Skepticism is a good thing. When someone practices bad science by massaging data, it's bad science, regardless of what side of line they are on. Personally, I roughly fit the mold of my second example. I think global warming is obviously true; sun cycle theories are wholly inadequate; anthropogenic makes the most sense; and spending hundreds of billions on existing technologies for reducing emissions is a foolhardy plan.
I'd agree with you except 1) it's a story about server hacking, 2) it's a story about not only politics but science, and 3) there's been a long-term trend of posting climate articles on HN
I get tired of being sucked into the political side of the debate -- no winners there -- but dang it, climate change science is a really fascinating topic from a purely intellectual standpoint. The Earth is not just a black body, and various carbon-based molecular absorption spectra is not the do-all, end-all metric that pop science writers say it is. CA programming has a default behavior of producing runaway models, as Wolfram so aptly points out in NKS. Lots of cool and tech-weenie stuff in here. (But also lots of emotion, so I concede that it ticks a lot of folks off. But 100% "Erlang Innards" is probably not going to happen any time soon)
This is unmodified, untampered data from climate scientists. Do you know how rare that is! Now you do. Of course we're excited!
Skeptics Handbook http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming
Skeptics Handbook II http://joannenova.com.au/2009/11/skeptics-handbook-ii-global...
It's always been about the science.
Given the amount of money in play here, the value of this release to certain parties is enormous. What would a multinational oil company be willing to pay to derail Copenhagen? What would the Chinese government pay to avoid being subject to global CO2 emissions rules down the road?
While this is probably an inside job by a disgruntled IT worker, if this was a paid job the value delivered is truly enormous: definitely hundreds of millions of dollars, and conceivably much more.
Is there any level of data security that can protect against such a large incentive?
http://www.sophos.com/blogs/gc/g/2009/11/20/hackers-steal-in...
Millions I can imagine. That's several peoples salaries over several years. But billions? Surely he shouldn't be making such an extreme claim without detailing how he thinks that value is broken down. It seems obviously nonsense just by rough order of magnitude estimates.
From http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220:
"Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today"
Billions of taxpayers money is no exaggeration for the general case.
IMHO I doubt this is an endemic problem in climate research, no matter how much I despise the many statisticians claiming they're scientists. Statisticians show correlations, scientists prove causation. However with literally billions of dollars on the table, it certainly makes me curious of the validity of other researchers work.
With a $1.7B cake on the table, are people lying so that the host of the party (the federal government) gives them a slice?
I also think the author is grouping in a lot of extra climate scientists in with this group, which isn't technically fair but I personally don't think it is so unreasonable to think that this is a somewhat common practice in any collegiate research (let alone climate research). You can't get grant money if you don't show results. I think the one area where you'd have less of this influence is academic medical research - because double blind studies is a standard practice in that field.
They've appropriated it for their own ends, sure. But that's what academia everywhere does without having to give much of a justification.
Please tell me we understand this fact. Nobody (that is, no scientists) is pocketing money and running here, they're spending this money on research gear and on hiring analysts and grad students and the like. Given this, how is the amount invested relevant at all?
Are they getting paid? (If not, who is paying their living expenses?)
Is it "money" only if it goes for hookers and booze?
> There is no incentive for them to do anything other than get published, and this by no means requires any lying or forging of data.
Scientists are people.
Refereed journals only publish what the referees believe and what they find interesting. (There were the equivalent of refereed journals for ether, phrenology, eugenics, etc. and I suspect that there are still refereed journals for astrology.)
Getting published may not require "lying or forging", but they can help in certain circumstances. So can being sloppy in the "correct way".
