The following is an excerpt from OpinionJournal.com’s “Best of the Web” written by the editor, James Taranto.
NOTE: The excerpt below is from the April 15, 2010 BOTW archives.
‘Dedicated if Slightly Disorganized’
“An independent academic panel said Wednesday that the U.K. climate researchers at the center of a scandal over hacked emails didn’t commit any deliberate scientific malpractice,” The Wall Street Journal reports:
The review found the scientists were “dedicated if slightly disorganized.” It did question their statistical methods, saying it was “very surprising” they hadn’t worked more closely with professional statisticians.
You’ve got to love that “dedicated if slightly disorganized.” The full report runs eight pages and makes no reference to the most serious revelation in the emails: efforts by CRU scientists and their colleagues to manipulate the peer-review process at the expense of alternative hypotheses.
An article last week in Der Spiegel titled “A Superstorm for Global Warming Research,” meanwhile, paints a very different picture from the “independent panel” with its business-as-usual approach:
German climatologist Hans von Storch now wants to see an independent institution recalculate the temperature curve, and he even suggests that the skeptics be involved in the project. He points out, however, that processing the data will take several years.
“There is no other way to regain the trust that has been lost,” he says, “even if I’m certain that the new curve will not look significantly different from the old one.”
And if it does? “That would definitely be the worst-case scenario for climatology. We would have to start all over again.”
That’s a revealing quote, isn’t it? These climate guys have been insisting we’re all doomed, and if it turns out they’re wrong, that’s the worst-case scenario for them.
For more “Best of the Web” click here and look for the “Best of the Web Today” link in the middle column below “Today’s Columnists.
