Monday, March 01, 2010

Royal Society of Chemistry defends science against AGW secrecy

Today, the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) has submitted an encouraging statement to the U.K. Parliamentary committee investigating the ClimateGate:
RSC statement (click)
In this statement, the institution with 46,000 members says that it is essential for science - and the public's confidence in science - that the data are available, research may be and is reproduced, and peer review is impartial.

On Saturday, The Institute of Physics, a scientific charity with 36,000 members, submitted an even more stringent document to the same committee in which it states that unless the correspondence from the ClimateGate is a forgery - which it's surely not - it de facto proves that their scientific work in the climate science was fraudulent.

Meanwhile, a description of a very different culture was heard by the lawmakers from Phil Jones:
BBC: Phil Jones grilled by MPs
Phil Jones tries to act as a victim and comments on the "awful e-mails" he has written. But what's remarkable is that he admits that no other researcher (except for the "skeptics", whom he apparently didn't consider to be scientists) has ever wanted the raw data from him: they - or "most scientists" - only want the "final product".

That's cute because it shows that whatever he calls "most scientists" were actually not doing their work. His work has never been and couldn't have been verified by anybody. They only picked the results that they found convenient, so they never felt the urge to verify, check, or reproduce anything. The "skeptics" are actually the only people who could deserve the title "scientists" in these episodes.

Jones' comments clearly indicate that this complete lack of verification and reproduction has been a totally standard practice, using the words of Metro, in the discredited scientific discipline whose top-five symbol he has become. I feel that he has understood that his comrades have thrown him under the bus, so he is going to do the same thing to the whole global warming farrago, too.


  1. I feel much better knowing that, unlike the Royal Society, many scientists refuse to endorse régime-oriented, financially serving post-normal science.

  2. The RSC doesn't come out of the climate change issue smelling of roses, though. In December 2008 I exposed a rather unscientific experiment and teachers notes they were promoting in the schools in UK: