The Wall Street Journal seems to be a bit confused about what a loyalty oath is. According to a
December 11 post, scientists at the UK Met Office have been pressured to sign a "government loyalty oath."
Now, here's what the statement actually says:
We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. The evidence and the science are deep and extensive. They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity. That research has been subject to peer review and publication, providing traceability of the evidence and support for the scientific method. The science of climate change draws on fundamental research from an increasing number of disciplines, many of which are represented here. As professional scientists, from students to senior professors, we uphold the findings of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which concludes that "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal" and that "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations".
So, I've read this several times, and I'm having a spot of trouble finding the part where the scientists pledge government loyalty. It was easier in this one:
I swear by God this sacred oath that I shall render unconditional obedience to Adolf Hitler, the Führer of the German Reich, supreme commander of the armed forces, and that I shall at all times be prepared, as a brave soldier, to give my life for this oath.
The
Times of London, an actual newspaper, is fooled by the loyalty oath and headlines it this way:
Suprisingly, the WSJ manages to get one thing right.
The concept of scientists--or journalists, or artists ... signing a petition is ludicrous. The idea is that they are lending their authority to whatever cause the petition represents--but in fact they are undermining that authority, which is based on the presumption that they think for themselves.
Oh. Interesting. Scientists signing petitions is "ludicrous." I'll have to remember this next time someone mentions the
scam OISM petition signed by 31,000 "scientists."
Now, here's what the statement actually says:
Suprisingly, the WSJ manages to get one thing right.
Regarding perversion of the IPCC peer-review process, Dr Philip Lloyd, a coordinating lead for the IPCC wrote this on 11/23/09:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=87726
“I was a co-ordinating lead author [for the IPCC]… [I]t gave me insight into the flaws behind the whole process.
The IPCC claims that it has thousands of scientists and almost as many reviewers of the scientists' work to produce their reports. There are two problems, however. In the scientific world I move in, “review” means that your work is scrutinised by several independent, anonymous reviewers chosen by the editor.
However, when I entered the IPCC world, the reviewers were there at the worktable, criticising our drafts, and finally meeting with all us co-ordinators and many of the IPCC functionaries in a draftfest.
The product was not reviewed in the accepted sense of the word — there was no independence of review, and the reviewers were anything but anonymous. The result is not scientific.
The process is so flawed that the result is tantamount to fraud. As an authority, the IPCC should be consigned to the scrapheap without delay.”
Doesn't really address the post, Anon.
ReplyDelete