Blogs

The Betrayal of Science

John Rentoul

cirrus 300x225 The Betrayal of ScienceThe third inquiry into the University of East Anglia climate change emails imbroglio has cleared Professor Phil Jones of any misconduct, although it still hasn’t quite explained why he wrote to a colleague that he had used “a trick” to “hide the decline” in temperatures implied by tree ring data.

I would have thought that the science of the human contribution to climate change is well established, but that it is surrounded by more uncertainty about the scale of change to date, and, more significantly, about the future, than the groupthink of scientists has allowed.

For me, the most worrying of Prof Jones’s emails is not one of the confidential ones that was leaked, but one that he sent to a climate-change sceptic who was demanding data under the Freedom of Information Act, which Steve Connor, The Independent’s excellent science editor, quotes today:

We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?

In that one question, Prof Jones reveals his fundamental betrayal of science, the Enlightenment and the search for truth.

Tagged in: ,
  • thomasaikenhead

    Face the facts, climate change is about power, money, business and influence, it has nothing to do with science.

    Like cancer research, the Holocaust industry, the avian flu vaccine swindle, the U.N’s Massive AIDS Scandal, the Bono make Poverty history campaign or the war in Afghanistan, it is a smokescreen for a group of vested interests to amke money at the expense of the general public!

  • http://twitter.com/JeremyDas Jeremy Das

    I was mortified to find that I had accidentally “liked” one of Fareham’s comments. Suffice it to say that I don’t like it at all. I have therefore applied a suitable statistical correction factor by “liking” some of the other comments.

  • http://twitter.com/JeremyDas Jeremy Das

    “I would have thought that the science of the human contribution to climate change is well established”

    Well, why not investigate whether it is? Suggestion: for the moment forget Climategate, Phil Jones’ postmodernist take on science, and the many cases – notably including Mann’s tree-ring analysis – where the work of “warmists” seems to have been shown to be flawed.

    Instead, ask the most basic questions about the Sun, cosmic rays, the Earth and its orbit, clouds, carbon dioxide and water vapour, and the sea. I say this because I suspect that there’s enough incontrovertible absence of theory and/or observational data in this to make it difficult to avoid the conclusion that AGW is, at best, hypothesis masquerading as theory or, to put it bluntly, junk science.

  • http://twitter.com/JeremyDas Jeremy Das

    “I would have thought that the science of the human contribution to climate change is well established”

    Well, why not investigate whether it is? Suggestion: for the moment forget Climategate, Phil Jones' postmodernist take on science, and the many cases – notably including Mann's tree-ring analysis – where the work of “warmists” seems to have been shown to be flawed.

    Instead, ask the most basic questions about the Sun, cosmic rays, the Earth and its orbit, clouds, carbon dioxide and water vapour, and the sea. I say this because I suspect that there's enough incontrovertible absence of theory and/or observational data in this to make it difficult to avoid the conclusion that AGW is, at best, hypothesis masquerading as theory or, to put it bluntly, junk science.


Property search
Browse by area

Latest from Independent journalists on Twitter