In the midst of the Climategate 2.0 discoveries which are still being made I am struck by something. You take the most prestigious minds in a field of inquiry (which you seem to be able to count on one hand) and you can find the following:
The big cheese of climatology is described by one of his allies in an e-mail to another star of the field as “vindictive”, “a bad enemy” and as having gone a little “crazy” at a paper which he perceived as an attack because it supported the existence of an historically proven period of time on earth, the medieval warm period.
One of these leading lights doesn’t know how to use the software that he does some of his data “analysis” on. That software is Excel.
The big cheese of the field told one of his main critics that “numerous (unnamed) persons” had proven his criticisms “simply wrong” (using unreferenced proofs) and asked the critic if he had the integrity to withdraw his criticism.
Big-Cheese and “science” bloggers defenders then demonstrate a shocking inability to understand the criticisms they claim to be debunking; equating the rejection of the claimed ability to measure global temperature (the planet is incredibly far from thermodynamic equilibrium) and the rejection of the concept of temperature itself–say, of a bucket of water.
I want to restate that last bit because I don’t read climate “science” advocacy very much anymore and so when I’m confronted by something like this it’s like jumping into cold water. No matter how much you expect it you are not ready for the shock. People who consider themselves men of science are unable to comprehend a simple and simply stated criticism. Yet they think it has been “proven” “simply wrong” by “numerous persons” and that this proclamation should be enough to invoke conversion of critics.
These are the people who ARE the field of climatology and the theory of a human driven climate crisis. These are the people whom we are called anti-science for not believing. This is a disgrace.
Here’s an idea. Fire all these loons and bring in people who know Excel, who understand statistics, who can follow a simple statement far enough to reply intelligently and who can understand that when a computer model diverges from observations of the system being modeled it is not reality that is malfunctioning. Let them publish works where the peer review process is open and transparent. If these new *qualified* (and identified) persons come to the same conclusions as the Hockey Team and are able to address criticisms, then I will give some consideration to their warnings. Otherwise, certain vindictive persons can be invited to place their hockey sticks in the appropriate places.