RSS Feed This entry was posted on Wednesday, November 25th, 2009 at 10:30 am and is filed under Health Alert. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
 |
- At Other Sites
- Beam Me Up
- Book Review
- Breaking News
- CBO
- Discussion
- From the Trenches
- FYI
- Ground Control to Sen. Democrats
- Health Alert
- 2008 Election
- African AIDS
- Babies
- Bad Studies
- Book Reviews
- Bush Health Plan
- Diabetics
- Drugs
- Health Care Access
- Health Care Costs
- Health Reform
- HSAs
- International
- LAZIK Surgery
- Malpractice
- Media Advisory
- Medicaid
- Medical Economics
- Medical Tourism
- Mental Health
- Minimum Wage
- Portability
- Racial Disparities
- RAND Studies
- Safety
- Scary Forecasts
- SCHIP
- Seniors/Medicare
- Socialized Medicine
- Supply Side
- Telemedicine
- Transparency
- Uninsured
- Vet Care
- Vision Thing
- Workers Comp
- Hits & Misses
- Holiday
- In Memoriam
- In the News
- Interesting Videos
- Memorial Day
- New Videos
- NHS Update
- Notable and Quotable
- Obesity Update
- On Capitol Hill
- Personal Testimony
- Petition
- Plans
- Policy Update
- Question of the Week
- Quote of the Day
- Season's Greetings
- Song of the Season
- The People Speak Out
- Updates
Categories
Contributors
- Ron Bachman
- Michael Bond
- Jim Frogue
- John Goodman
- Linda Gorman
- Robert Graboyes
- John R. Graham
- Devon Herrick
- Regina Herzlinger
- June O'Neill
- Roy Ramthun
- Greg Scandlen
Recent Posts
- Inventor of the P.S.A. Test Says It Was a Huge Mistake
- Not All Indian Health Care is Awful
- Federal Work Pays
- To Create Jobs, Open the Door to Immigrant Entrepreneurs
- Do You Know What Biologics Are?
- What People Outside the Beltway Think
- The Truly Bizarre Structure of ObamaCare Health Care Subsidies
- The Callahan Solution for Spiraling Health Costs: Put Seniors on the Ice
- Maybe Sen. Bunning is Right about Unemployment Benefits
- The Mystery of Health Care Policy
Blogroll
Nov 25, 2009
Stolen e-mail messages among some of the leading climatologists are deeply disturbing. Rather than reflect a desire to discover truth, they reflect a desire to use scholarship and journal articles to convince the public of the scientists’ predetermined points-of-view. Among the topics: How to present data to mislead the readers, how to keep articles written by skeptics out of print, and even how to damage the reputation of scholars who are not on the global warming bandwagon.
Some selected passages with highlights are available here.
For more on the controversy, including links to the searchable data base containing the emails and computer code, visit Watts Up With That, Climate Depot, The Bishop Hill blog, and the Climate Audit Mirror Site.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute, one of the bête noirs of those promoting global warming, has announced its intention to sue NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies for refusing to provide documents requested under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act.
6 Responses to “What Do Climate Change and Health Policy Scholarship Have in Common? Nothing, We Hope.”
RSS
Twitter
YouTube
LinkedIn
Facebook
Flickr
Helium
November 25th, 2009 at 11:00 am
Disgusting.
November 25th, 2009 at 11:02 am
Disgusting squared.
November 25th, 2009 at 11:39 am
Their big problem at the moment is that we have been experiencing global cooling for the past decade and they cannot explain why.
November 25th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Adherence to a religion requires blind faith in things than cannot be seen or proven. Man-made global warming has become a religion to these people. Just because data does not support their theories does not mean they will abandon their faith.
November 25th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
When Bush administration officials “edited” climate reports to downplay the risks posed by warming, the NY Times excoriated the administration, allotted very little space for the administration to answer the charges, and asked hard questions, not about whether the documents were leaked illegally but rather why they made particular edits, what they meant by this or that change, etc… http://bit.ly/4EWb5f
They give scant attention, a few paragraphs at most to the actual problems uncovered by the e-mail – suppression of inconvenient data, using tricks to change the reported outcome, suppression of dissent, undermining the peer review process. By contrast they give most of the space –- multiple paragraphs — to the scientists whose malfeasance was uncovered allowing them to say it not as bad as it seems, we “really” didn’t commit fraud, and that nothing contained in the e-mails was really important. It’s like the wizard in the Wizard of Ox saying “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain,” when in fact, the real action is going on behind the curtain.
November 29th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Paul Krugman was on ABC this morning trying to defend the email writers. He did a lousy job. But how do you defend the indefensible?