So why can't, or won't, the climate change community mount a more compelling defense?

MEGAN MCARDLE ON CLIMATEGATE: “This interview with the head of the UN’s climate experts is ridiculous. He responds to concerns about the peer review process being stacked by saying . . . all the work was peer reviewed. I am open to being convinced that I should not care about hacked information, and I am a confirmed believer in AGW. So why can’t, or won’t, the climate change community mount a more compelling defense?” Plus this: ClimateGate: The end of credibility and the need for process control. “Increasingly, the average concerned citizen without a particular ax to grind will no longer trust the climate scientists simply because they say so, or because Al Gore says so on their behalf. So how do we regain that trust? By agreeing that we will not use data or the output from climate models to inform public policy unless they have been developed according to established quality systems for mission critical software and have been audited accordingly by a genuinely disinterested third party. Because of the implications for the global economy and the well-being of literally billions of people over the next century, requiring that the models and the data used to feed the models be subject to at least the process control and auditing that we would require of a medical device seems the absolute least we should do.” Also, is it all about power? http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/89099/

Posted via email from Garth's posterous