cheers

My main source of skepticism has been that, in my eyes, science, at least that in any field less “hard” than chemistry, has been seriously called into question because it has become so influenced by both money and ideology. Just as it is true that the consensus often derides any research study which was conducted by anyone funded by, or who has ties to, energy interests, skeptics counter with the same sort of claims that one should look to whom funds consensus studies.

By way of analogy, it is undeniable that smoking is the major cause (or at least catalyst) for dreaded lung diseases. However, I remain most skeptical when it seems to be purported by epistemological studies that it causes just about every other malady under the sun, from wrinkles to the heartbreak of psoriasis. Just as studies funded by tobacco interests are (and should be) held suspect, so should studies commissioned by the anti-tobacco lobby and anti-smoking zealots. One would think that if cigarettes had never been invented, we would all live to 120 in contemporary times. (Does anyone ever audit these studies, one wonders, for things such as leading questions and selective data gathering?).

In addition to the question of the vested interest, there is also the well-known phenomenon of the researcher’s bias. So often, he or she starts out to “test” (i.e., prove) a pet theory and, voila, almost invariably the study’s result vindicates the theory! A geologist who supports the GW theory wrote an excellent article regarding “Climategate” in *Popular Mechanics* (available for free on the web) in which he acknowledges that it is rare for any scientist to admit that his or her theory is wrong.

(A refreshing exception was the case of John Stewart Bell, the late Northern Irish physicist, who made a landmark contribution (“Bell’s Theorem”) to quantum mechanics when, via a rigorous mathematical proof, he proved the exact opposite of what he had set out to!)

In this light, I confess my presentiments were that the climate change consensus was likely the result of science once again being corrupted by money and ideology. I thought the consensus was dominated by researches of a left-wing, anti-capitalist ideology being funded by environmental advocacy groups and an United Nations General Assembly dominated by Third World nations hoping to cash in by way of “climate reparations.”

Since I last posted on the other thread, I have discovered a marvelous YouTube presented lecture by Naomi Oreskes, Ph.D., of UCAL, San Diego. She is apparently a scientific historian. What so impressed me is how she goes to great pains to demonstrate that the science behind the theory of global warming long antedates such political considerations, going back to at least the 1930s, with much more work having been done in the 1950s in the United States, hardly a period here with Marxist inclinations. She cites papers published then by highly respected scientists of irrefutably apolitical persuasions, some of whom served in both Democratic and Republican administrations as scientific advisors.

Because of the sheer immensity of the variables involved within the climate system and the corresponding problematic nature of trying to accurately forecast climate change causes and effects, I shall probably always have some lingering doubts. However, from what I have learned here, and on a website referred to me here by S2, and because of Dr. Oreskes’s lecture, the issue has reached a tipping point in my mind. The risk/reward ratio of being right/wrong on this issue now lies with the consensus.

Therefore, I have no more questions and thank S2 and all for your guidance here. I would urge all to view and listen to Dr. Oreskes’s lecture when time permits. Here is the link:

Thanks much.

A hold is a routine organizational or departmental practice when there is any kind of investigation or a potential dispute before the courts (including an active complaint under the FOIA). As I already tried to explain to you, it is done no matter the merits of the complaint or petition or potential suit. Why? Because of the risk of penalties if you don’t do it.

A legal hold is an over-ride on the usual retention and documents destruction schedule. It says documents must be preserved until further notice.

If it is not done and something proceeds to litigation, the courts might impose a really big fine or make damaging evidentiary assumptions. Similarly in any investigation or review, it looks bad if you fail to suspend documents destruction or ensure transparency.

Staff are typically notified by email. As you can imagine, if communication about a hold was itself a confidential legal matter rather than a fairly routine legal policy obligation, it would not be sent out by email.

It is even possible that CEI is not the culprit and CRU’s own external investigation has led to a hold on documents engaging CRU in sponsored research.

I am content to end the conversation because your opinion is so obviously misinformed by your ignorance about the basics of legal holds.

Which means that the core science will be still there.

I’ll answer for you.
The fact is you don’t have any interest in the science. If you did you would be discussing it here and not hoping that some courtroom will decide the outcome.

Have a problem with that?
—-

Exactly, the way Galileo’s Hoax was ruled to be a fraud by the Inquisition in 1633.

You haven’t answered my question.

How does litigation actually result in an understanding of the climate?

Actually, Ray, it does matter.

“Looks like the Dept of Energy is taking this seriously”
“what matters is that it exists”

Not really, and not really.

It means that DoE is responding to someone who has petitioned or threatened litigation. It tells you zero about the merits of the petition.

It matters that the richly libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) has recently filed a petition against the EPA in an effort to delay legislation in response to the EPA finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger human health; and that CEI has desperately released ‘news’ that the CRU matter is relevant to their petition (since nothing else is) and that DoE has historically engaged CRU in sponsored research related to their climate change research objectives.

And all of this activity, so close to Copenhagen – what a coincidence.

You lack insight into the conversation.

This is a great day for science.

The answer is that it doesn’t.

If you think it is delicious, then you don’t care about understanding the science.

Madeline Screven, who is listed as a paralegal in the DOE phonebook confirmed they issued the directive.

http://phonebook.doe.gov/

When asked if they (the DOE) have a litigation hold notice related to the CRU she answered. “yes we do”

If this is spam it tastes damn delicious.

Tell you what, how about you stop spamming every piece of junk you read at FreeRepublic, and actually address what this blog post is talking about?

– bi

DOE-SR has received a “Litigation Hold Notice” from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) General Council and the DOE Office of Inspector General regarding the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England.

That damned nest of freepers!

http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2221#comments
—-

Freeper bomb; the tweet went out and the droids descended.

So its either the earths ecosystems and millions of humans, or american prosperity? Thats just wrong – you can be prosperous and help stave off global warming, you just need to be intelligent about it. These guys are just fighting back against change and anything which might make thier lifetimes investments worthless.

What mental disorder describes those among us who proclaim themselves Masters of the Universe doing the work of God?

Years of hard work by people with feet of clay all come down to this week in Copenhagen. The “now or never” week is at hand for the children, global biodiversity, life as we know it, the integrity of Earth and its environs. This week is the moment that the Masters of the Universe cannot avoid any longer; all of the human family are bound in this long-awaited momentous week. The time for action has come, finally. The opportunity held in this blessed moment must not be missed.

If anyone thinks of something that I can do to assist any of you to reasonably, sensibly, responsibly and humanely realize the goals of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, please send word to me.

Steve Salmony
Chapel Hill, North Carolina

See Monty Python’s ‘Upper-class Twit of the Year’.

These stupid country folk never think

I’m sure that you didn’t mean to tar all rural residents with the same brush – but that is how your comment came across.

I live in a rural area, and I (and most of my neighbours) can see changes happening that city folks would miss. Certainly there are stupid people here, as there are in the cities – but you shouldn’t imply that rural people are less intelligent or informed than city people.

(I mean he lost it ages ago because he does not understand the basic principles of logic… but you see my point.)

Want a clue as to how much of a massive ***k this guy is? Check the open letter he produced to McCain during the US elections. It’s got a lovely italicised font and a smart looking heraldry shield. It looks like an overpuffed scroll of buffonery… http://anarchist606.blogspot.com/2009/12/some-comments-on-global-warming-denial.html