But I see now my use of the term was ambiguous. It could have been taken to refer to the institution. My apologies for any confusion.

Not sure how that’s possible, when talking of the credibility of a science. Isn’t “climate science” either the institution of climate scientists, or the body of knowledge assembled by climate scientists?

Have you clearly distinguished climate science, and climate scientists?

I have a cognitive disconnect between this
The process that led all these organisations of scientists to issue statements is called Argumentum ad Verecundiam.
and this
The questions are out there, and are posing a problem for climate science’s credibility.

If Appeal to Authority is to be avoided, why should credibility be a concern? If no authority should be trusted, then no one’s credibility should be of value.

The criterion was not whether they undercut my thesis, but whether they provide evidence.

For example, in exonerations of Mann, the first thing I always look for is their response on the issue of the r-squared cross-validation statistics for the 1400 step. Do they comment on whether he did or did not calculate it prior to publication? Do they comment on whether and when it was reported? Do they discuss the fight over publication of the Jesus paper, and did it include the statistics before or after the publication date meeting the IPCC deadline? Do they comment on what constitutes a pass, and what constitutes failure to report adverse results? What new evidence do they present in support of their explanation?

There are numerous others that could have been chosen, but it’s as good as any. I had a look at the linked report, and found no mention of it.

The questions are out there, and are posing a problem for climate science’s credibility. I would have thought, therefore, that it was obviously to their benefit to make sure complete and proven answers were available. It would go a long way towards shutting the sceptics up. So why do we get enquiry after enquiry stating no evidence of wrongdoing was found, but without showing how this can be squared with what is already known?

I can equally easily say I have conducted twenty or thirty enquiries myself, and found in each plenty of evidence of wrongdoing. If I did so, you would naturally ask me what evidence I had for that, wouldn’t you? Or would you take my word for it?

Nice scam you’ve set up for yourself here, Nullius. Since you yourself have never conducted any of the investigations, you can liberally claim any of them that undercut your thesis are actually just the products of authorities or authoritarian thinking. Because at some stage in ANY data-gathering process there will ALWAYS be some external authority involved–some other scientist who did the tests or reviewed them or published them or compared them to something else in order to make them available to the current investigator, all the way down the chain to you as reader–and that’s the gap where your God lives.

“The first [sort of argument] is, to allege the Opinions of Men, whose Parts, Learning, Eminency, Power, or some other cause has gained a name, and settled their Reputation in the common esteem with some kind of Authority. When Men are established in any kind of Dignity, ‘tis thought a breach of Modesty for others to derogate any from it, and question the Authority of Men, who are in possession of it. This is apt to be censured, as carrying with it too much Pride, when a Man does not readily yield to the Determination of approved Authors, which is wont to be received with respect and submission by others: and ‘tis looked upon as insolence, for a Man to set up and adhere to his own Opinion against the current Stream of Antiquity; or to put it in the balance against that of some learned Doctor, or otherwise approved Writer. Whoever backs his Tenets with such Authorities, thinks he ought thereby to carry the Cause, and is ready to style it Impudence in any one who shall standout against them. This I think may be called Argumentum ad Verecundiam.”

John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, 1690.

Incredulous, I think you have just been styled “impudent”!

Noted and sincere apologies. In retrospect, I agree. With your indulgence, I will try again with more civility.

#14. Jon

Climategate was about the behavior of some scientists who coincidentally happened to be studying climate science. The validity of the science could never disproved nor confirmed by the Climategate documents or the subsequent investigations. I will grant that there are some who took it as an avenue to further their own agendas to counter the science of these scientists in particular and the whole of climate science in general, but they are not inherently linked.

I am just mystified that people who are clearly in favor of the scientific method are apparently not appalled by the behavior exhibited in the leaked documents and are able to overlook what I find to be egregious behavior on the part of these scientists.

It would be serious if it had happened. It would have been semi-serious if anyone had “attempted wrongdoing.” But it never happened, and no one attempted it. You cannot show any evidence that it happened or was attempted. There IS no evidence that it happened or was attempted. People TALKED ABOUT IT AND THEN DID NOTHING. Quit cheering on the maniacs who persecute them for this.