Over at Climate Audit, there are a few comments in the “Lots of Station Data” post that get to the heart of the matter when it comes to the CRU Event:
For some CAers, it is proof of fraud:
You’ve got to be kidding me. And we’re still trying to be nice and avoid using the “fraud” word? There is no other word for this kind of behavior that fits better.
Steve has done an extraordinary job of “auditing” this fraudulant activity. It seems that Steve is doing the job that should be done by the universities, granting agencies,government agencies providing and using data, IPCC, and so forth on an ongoing basis. It will be of great interest to observe the extent to which the “independent investigations” at East Anglia CRU and Penn. State are as thorough. The huge question that follows, of course, is how these data have been used in unquestioning fashion to produce their “independent” investigations of global warming?
The clear implication is that the emails are evidence of fraud that reaches right to the heart of the AGW paradigm.
A few voices (in the wilderness perhaps?) disagree:
East Anglia CRU is one of several top research stations. The withheld data has not been shown to dent the overall picture of increasing temperatures and impacts (such as melting ice). Even if it did, the effect on the other two hundred lines of evidence from other data sources and research stations could only be miniscule.
So — brass tacts on whether the CRU emails show proof of scientific fraud and whether they offer any proof that overturns the AGW paradigm:
- The CRU emails reveal written statements that suggest – but don’t prove – some questionable behavior on the part of some climate scientists.
- None of the potentially questionable behavior overturns established climate science, or as I like to call it, the AGW dominant scientific paradigm.
- The only thing that can possibly overturn the AGW dominant scientific paradigm is research that provides convincing evidence that some other agency than humans is responsible for observed warming. The only evidence that would prove the AGW paradigm and its research is based on fraudulent data and theory is if all the data in all the various lines of evidence are shown to have been fraudulently changed to reflect warming that did not in fact occur.
That’s a heavy burden.
- To overturn the AGW paradigm as a whole, convincing alternative research evidence and theory must be provided that shows the existing paradigm is unable to account for observed warming as well as the alternative evidence.
- For proof of fraud / hoax, the data has to be shown to have been fraudulently changed – in other words, those who changed the data must be shown to have changed it knowing that the changes they were making were incorrect.
- That would require those who charge fraud to prove that in fact, there was no warming during the period in question as shown by the research that supports the AGW paradigm.
I don’t see much other than an attempt to question the scientist’s ethics, question the data, without showing that any of the questioning actually overturns any of the research, nor do I see any evidence that in fact, the earth is not warming nor that the warming is caused by some other agency than human GHG emissions.
When I see that, I will take note.