"Open Access to Environmental Data" Would Be a "Perversion"
Last Wednesday, I wrote about the evasion of Freedom of Information laws and other shenanigans by the usual cadre of pro-global warming advocates under the guise of science. In the posting, I wrote:
So, I'm not surprised that this nonsense continues -- as recently as last week.
Steve McIntyre, who I think is worthy of a Pulitizer Prize for his investigative reporting, documents more attempts to hide data and keep the work of the pro-global warming International Panel on Climate Change secret.
As I said in the original posting: The replication of scientific results is an absolutely essential part of the scientific method. If results are not reproducible, they are not science.
While I disagreed with some of the early results of the IPCC's fifteen years ago, I respected the process. It has since devolved into a largely closed advocacy group that uses sloppy science to achieve its results. My expectations for their newest report -- due out later this year -- are extremely low.
Is this the behavior of people who are confident in their position?
Steve McIntyre, who I think is worthy of a Pulitizer Prize for his investigative reporting, documents more attempts to hide data and keep the work of the pro-global warming International Panel on Climate Change secret.
As I said in the original posting: The replication of scientific results is an absolutely essential part of the scientific method. If results are not reproducible, they are not science.
While I disagreed with some of the early results of the IPCC's fifteen years ago, I respected the process. It has since devolved into a largely closed advocacy group that uses sloppy science to achieve its results. My expectations for their newest report -- due out later this year -- are extremely low.
Comments
Post a Comment