[…] these weather organisations put in them so they can audit it and make sure the BOM didnt ‘hide the decline‘. Also like the American stations the Australian stations seem a mess, Anthony Watts at […]
This whole debate is so reminiscent of the smoking / lung cancer controversy of previous decades. If only email had been in existence at that time, perhaps some intrepid hacker could have given us tobacco skeptics a ‘smoking gun’ just like the CRU emails!
I suspect it would not have been hard to find evidence of a conspiracy on the part of those oh-so-smug peer-reviewed scientists to keep the TRUTH from ever seeing the light of day. As it was, brave scientists who dared to question the cancer ‘consensus’, like the psychologist and statistician Professor Hans Eysenck, were treated as pariahs.
You might be interested in the following quotation from another of those skeptics of yesteryear, Dr William Whitby (who was described – by Professor Hans Eysenck, as it happens – as an ‘an eminent physician and surgeon’.). In his classic book The Smoking Scare Debunked, Dr Whitby wrote:
“To foster their case the antis don’t feel at all bound to obey scientific principles. This lack of honesty has disturbed a number of doctors and professional journals. I have already mentioned how the Lancet accused them of ‘juggling with statistics’. The British Journal, Public Health (March 1978) said, “If we are to retain the confidence and respect of the public ought we not to take the greatest care not to mislead them?” This was said with reference to smoking.
“The honest query was denounced strongly by leading spokesmen for the anti-smoking lobby. The Journal of the American Medical Association (August 1979) said, “Many reports on the origin of cancer have been flawed in both design and interpretation, but have been accepted by the agencies that funded them and by the news media. […]
“As many people have pointed out, the anti-smoking case must be very weak for the campaigners to have to indulge in deceit. Frightening the public in this way with false statements should be made a criminal offence. This is already the law in some countries where it is a jail offence to spread false reports likely to alarm the public. The lie that there is proof that smoking is harmful would surely qualify for a false report. The smoking scare is really so wicked that it is against all notions of justice that those responsible should not be punished.”
Ring any bells at all? One day, Eysenck and Whitby may come to be seen as the McIntyre and McKitrick of their era. With the power of the blogosphere at their disposal, perhaps they could have had more success in defending the purity and honesty of science against politically motivated attack by the enemies of freedom and enterprise.
I know you yourself played your part in the tobacco wars Mr Milloy – and good on you! So what if you took money from Philip Morris? Our once-great tobacco industry needed all the advocates it could pay for!