July 3, 2002: email 1057941657

The Director of Climate Research, Otto Kinne, investigated the complaints about the editorial and refereeing process, and wrote:

Dear colleagues, In my [20 June 2003] email to you I stated, among other things, that I would ask C[limate] R[esearch] editor Chris de Freitas to present to me copies of the reviewers’ evaluations for the [two] Soon et al. papers. I have received and studied the material requested. Conclusions: 1) The reviewers consulted (4 for each m[anu]s[cript]) by the editor presented detailed, critical and helpful evaluations. 2) The editor properly analyzed the evaluations and requested appropriate revisions. 3) The authors revised their manuscripts accordingly. Summary: Chris de Freitas has done a good and correct job as editor.

Mike Mann:

It seems to me that this ‘Kinne’ character’s words are disingenuous, and probably supports what De Freitas is trying to do. It seems clear we have to go above him. I think that the community should, as Mike H has previously suggested in this eventuality, terminate its involvement with this journal at all levels—reviewing, editing, and submitting, and leave it to wither way into oblivion and disrepute.

Tom Wigley writes:

I agree that Kinne seems like he could be a deFreitas clone. However, what would be our legal position if we were to openly and extensively tell people to avoid the journal?

Ben Santer writes:

Based on Kinne’s editorial, I see little hope for more enlightened editorial decision making at Climate Research. Tom, Richard Smith and I will eventually publish a rebuttal to the Douglass et al. paper. We’ll publish this rebuttal in [the Journal of Geophysical Research]—not in Climate Research.
.-= My last blog-post ..Front Page =-.

http://www.rainbowwellington.org.nz/BloodDonationSep2009.asp

“In modern Western societies a problem with science is it can come to see the body of knowledge it creates as the only knowledge that is real. This is a dangerous illusion”

“Science offers us a discourse and we use it in combination with other discourses to make ourselves and to form a basis for what we do.”

As you have drawn the distinction is suggests that science is “evidence based” whereas theology and philosophy are not. I would not grant that point at all.

But, putting that aside, I do grant a distinction between philosophical knowledge and scientific knowledge.

The problem is that sometimes there is overall in what different disciplines address. In the situation its possible to have scientific reasons for thinking X and philosophical reasons for thinking not X. For example there are some philosophical arguments which purport to show the universe had a beginning, these contend certain metaphysical impossibilities ensue if you deny this. A scientific theory like the steady state theory would contradict this. I don’t think one can say aprori that in cases like this the scientific argument is the correct one. Nor can we say the philosophical one is, we would have to examine both and come to a conclusion based on that.

I.e. would you say, that for living life here on earth, one is more valuable than the other? That for explaining the natural world as we can sense it, one is more valuable than the other?

To some extent it depends, some philosophical questions such as what constitutes a proper name are probably fairly trivial next to studies on how to cure various diseases.

But I think in general religion and philosophy address some of the big existential questions such as who am I what purpose do I have, They also answer the moral questions such as how should I live. And I think in general its more important to answer these questions than many scientific ones. In fact the reason we want to know how to cure diseases etc is often due to the fact that we think other people who are sick have significance value etc and we “should” help them, in which was the scientific endeavor finds its value and significance within a broader philosophical/theological framework.

Part of the problem with the global warming issue is that it’s used to justify certain moral positions and also frequently as part of a broader philosophical/theological view of the universe environment, mans place in it etc., it functions as a kind of eschatology. If one thinks that this broader perspective is flawed, then one needs to ask how much of the science is sound independently of these issues and how much depends upon them. These are the same issues that arise in the evolution debate, when scientists use evolution to justify atheism or naturalism one needs to ask whether evolution is defensible independently of a naturalistic perspective or whether its acceptability ultimately depends on this perspective in some way. It may well be that some form of theistic evolution is viable and so evolution can be detached from naturalism. But that does not mean that people should not ask the question in the first place? What bothers me is the way people are ridiculed and castigated as ignorant fundamentalists (which they often aren’t) for raising the question.

But seeing I need to say it again, I did not say NIWA was wrong, nor did I claim ACT is correct, nor did I claim the “denier” was right. I said I did not know, period, got it yet.

I won’t comment here on your more recent comments – although I think they are getting to the heart of the matter. Your anti-NIWA position is not based on evidence, rather on an anti-science position inherent in your theology/philosophy.

I see, because I said science is one way of gaining reliable information about reality but not the only way. I am anti science. I also think that mathematics is one way of gaining information about reality, but no the only way, ( it can’t tell me wifes name for example) so presumably by parity I must be anti math. I also must be anti theology as well because I don’t think theological reflection is the only way to know things either.

All this response on your part show is that you conflate science, with scientism. They are not the same thing.

This is a continuing discussion (consider Galielo, etc.)

No that had nothing to do with science, it’s a question of history.

Similarly you lecturing comments on “belief” and “knowledge” are a diversion, but do illustrate that you have a basic misunderstanding of scientific epistemology (probably inevitable with your theology/philosophy) and maybe that is why you have misrepresented the NIWA position.

I see, saying that knowledge involves in part a belief means that I don’t understand scientific epistemology. ‘

Ken this is an incredibly ignorant statement. As I have pointed out to you, almost every epistemologist in the world accepts that knowledge at least belief, that is to know p one has to think p, if one things p is false, or one does not have an opinion one way or the other they don’t know it is true. If what you said was true then apparently every epistemologist in the world, including almost all the worlds leading philosophers of science, don’t understand the epistemology of science. Apparently some soil scientist in NZ with no training in epistemology is the only one who does.

Perhaps I should refer you to Iapetus comments on your own blog. Iapetus wrote

“ This is indeed the definition that was used by philosophers from Plato and Aristotle onwards. Incidentally, “Belief” in this case is not limited to a religious, faith-based belief, but refers to any proposition that one is prepared to affirm as true. As a matter of fact, the condition that “knowledge” must be a true belief is pretty self-evident and not in serious dispute.”

He went on to state

“Although I am not Ken’s and Heraclides’ spokesperson, I would very much doubt that either of them would deny that a “true belief” constitutes “knowledge”. ..
Ken explicitly stated that he would not consider a false scientific theory to be “knowledge”. As I understood him, he merely pointed out that all scientific theories are provisional and may be improved or discarded if new data comes in.”

So by your definition Iapetus does not understand scientific epistemology either and neither apparently according to Iapetus do you.

There is of course the usual contradiction here, you have repeatedly come in here and demanded that we not question the scientific consensus unless we carefully read peer reviewed articles put out by scientists first. As soon however as it comes to an Philosophical position that is not in serious dispute and around which these is a consensus disagree with it can be dismissed as “jelly wresting” or “lecturing” without examination.
.-= My last blog-post ..Christmas Gifts for Bloggers =-.

That’s what is revealed by the way he uses the term. It’ll be interesting to see what he thinks he’s saying when he applies that label.

No need for codes or mathematical explanations – although you can certainly find that if you look.
.-= My last blog-post ..New Zealand’s climate change deniers’ distortions exposed. =-.

New Zealand may be hiding the decline, too

And finally, Watts Up With That is reporting about a conflict between New Zealand’s official climate data and the raw climate data. (H/T MandM, Evolution News)…