3 ms·

> what was it about the CRU emails that caused you to find > climate scientists to be untrustworthy? I haven't really looked at the emails since they came o

by nkurz 11y ago

> what was it about the CRU emails that caused you to find > climate scientists to be untrustworthy? I haven't really looked at the emails since they came out, and at this point the details blur, and I'm not eager to dive back into them. It's more that they lowered the level of trust I had in the good faith of some of the participants. I'm sure there was a fair amount of confirmation bias, because I'd been immersed in the details of some of the papers for many years and already disliked a number of the participants because of (what I judge to be) the questionable quality of their scientific work. While there were a few minor players who came off looking great (in my mind) several members of the leadership (in my mind) looked more like truth-twisting politicians than truth-seeking scientists. It wasn't a matter of smoking guns, rather lack of honorable exoneration for things that already concerned me. I agree that there were no findings of academic misconduct, but I don't think that shows the conduct was "becoming" of a good scientist.

thaumaturgy 11y ago
Well, that's all pretty reasonable. Science has its fair share of oddballs and bureaucrats too. I have to trust in the scientific process though. It's done pretty good so far, and I think that if there were serious flaws in the fundamental conclusions of climate science, one of the many good scientists out there would've pointed them out. (I'm using some weasel words here because I'd wager there are some disagreements among scientists in the field and I bet someone's going to come along and tell me so. But I doubt those disagreements would change statements like, "the planet is getting warmer", "humans are a significant contributing factor", "this is going to affect what we are accustomed to as 'normal' weather", and, "the west is going to get drier".)

by nkurz 11y ago

thaumaturgy 11y ago

Well, that's all pretty reasonable. Science has its fair share of oddballs and bureaucrats too. I have to trust in the scientific process though. It's done pretty good so far, and I think that if there were serious flaws in the fundamental conclusions of climate science, one of the many good scientists out there would've pointed them out. (I'm using some weasel words here because I'd wager there are some disagreements among scientists in the field and I bet someone's going to come along and tell me so. But I doubt those disagreements would change statements like, "the planet is getting warmer", "humans are a significant contributing factor", "this is going to affect what we are accustomed to as 'normal' weather", and, "the west is going to get drier".)