Duty to Disclose | Climate Skeptic (via sawickipedia)

Rafer sez:
For all your bitching about corporatism, I find it astounding that you fall for this 100% corporatist climate change skepticism hogwash. The climate is changing. We are causing it. To interpret the data any other way is the scientific equivalent of doubting Darwin and evolution, because you don’t know the scientific definition of “Theory.”

(via rafer)

The point made here is w/r/t scientifically invalid data and the misconduct of scientists trying to pass it off as hard, scientifically valid data.  Ignoring inconvenient truths doesn’t help anyone’s cause.

Please read Judith Curry’s blog - so you are aware she is a scientist at GaTech who authored the scientific paper that theorizes climate warming is causing an increase in tropical storms so she’s a believer - she’s uber pissed off about the lack of scientific standards being followed by some and how the misconduct of folks like Mann are ultimately HURTING the climate change camps theory.  She is someone who scientifically believes in anthropogenic climate change and yet calls what happened w/ Mann, et al. wrong:

“I would like to know what the heck Mann, Briffa, Jones et al. were thinking when they did this and why they did this, and how they can defend this, although the emails provide pretty strong clues.  Does the IPCC regard this as acceptable?  I sure don’t. Can anyone defend “hide the decline”?”

My biases here are skeptical of any large rush to judgment.  As a professional cynic yourself, I would think you would get that.  Because it supports your philosophical believes you don’t care whether the basis for some of the science is bogus.  I can’t overlook that.

That being said, I support similar goals of more renewable energy and less production of CO2.  Because for whatever the reason - the world needs to move towards more renewable, less carbon-emitting based energy systems.  We just get there in different ways.