- Legally correct and scientifically correct.
- Legally incorrect and scientifically correct
- Legally correct and scientifically incorrect
- Legally incorrect and scientifically incorrect.
Sir Muir Russell is supposed to decide between legally correct or incorrect, irrespective of
scientific correctness. However, the real question is scientific correctness, irrespective
of legal correctness. If the science is correct, it is more or less irrelevant if some legal aspects
are incorrect. If the science is incorrect, it is irrelevant if legal aspects are correct.
In other words: You can lose your academic position if your science is wrong, but not if you lose data or reject your competitors work on false grounds.
How can this be? Maybe because science has a very special nature as something which belongs
to all of us, which no-one can own and prevent others from using, which is endless. Which like Solar radiation is just there, irrespective of legality? Maybe, like in war and love, only the
result counts?
In any case, the Inquiry Team headed by Sir Muir does not appear to be correct.
In any case, UNs Climate Chief Yvo de Boer resigns. Pachauri next. In Free Fall:
- All this is being driven by breakdowns in the science behind global warming theory and in the global resolve to respond.
- The failure of Copenhagen to reach agreement reflected the two main problems:
- If the science is perceived to be shaky, and the global economic situation is shaky, if follows that the politics will head in the same direction.
And Tennekes was correct, after all: Read his Three Essays on Climate Models.
Washington Times: More (scientific) errors in temperature data.
Inlägg
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar