The problem with the scientists at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of East Anglia University, and global warming alarmists everywhere, is that they reason like a lawyer working on a case rather than as a scientist developing a new theory based upon observation of natural phenomena.
The scientific method involves observation, collection of data, formulation of a hypothesis, followed by more observation and data collection and testing of the hypothesis in an attempt to establish a viable theory to explain something. Often the original hypothesis will have to be changed several times on its way to becoming a credible theory.
That’s not how lawyers work. A lawyer wants to make his client’s case, whatever it is. It may be a good case or it may be a dog. Even if it’s a dog there will probably be some argument that can be made for it, even though there is a far superior argument against it. There may be some evidence that appears to support the client’s theory of the case although there is more and better evidence that works against it.
The lawyer’s task is to advance the best argument that can be made for this dog of a case, no matter how screwy it may be shown to be by reference to the facts. A skillful lawyer must master the rules of evidence and attempt to use them to exclude all of the evidence that supports all other possible theories, so that only the weak evidence that might allow his client to prevail ever comes before whatever tribunal is going to decide the case.
This sounds like a pernicious practice, and it is. But there will be another lawyer on the other side doing the same thing and long ago in England it was decided that the greatest engine for the discovery of truth, in legal disputes at least, was an adversarial system of two trained legal specialists going head to head, a learned judge acting as referee between them, and an impartial and unbiased jury of ordinary people listening to both sides before deliberating on a verdict for one and against the other.
The scientists at East Anglia practiced their trade exactly like I have described the legal process above except they were all on the same side. On the other side was all of us and for a long time our side had all of its evidence excluded from consideration. Like lawyers, the East Anglia scientists went to great lengths to prevent any of our evidence from ever being heard. They did this by intimidating scientific journals not to publish the research of any scientist who did not swallow hook, line and sinker the global warming flapdoodle they were selling, and by demonizing all dissenters as not qualified, or stupid or evil or all three.
The CRU scientists were better lawyers than scientists. They could look good as lawyers because they had what would be but a dream for a real lawyer, namely a judge that would grant every request to exclude all of the other guy’s evidence. Winning your case is easy when you have that deal.