3 ms·
Amateurs scientists are still scientists, using similar methods and acting in a constructive way. If nothing else many eyes effect makes them useful - particula
by glymor 17y ago
Amateurs scientists are still scientists, using similar methods and acting in a constructive way. If nothing else many eyes effect makes them useful - particularly in astronomy.
Journalists attempt to generate controversy to increase page views. Myles Allen was correct that corrections to climate models have come from scientists amateur or otherwise not journalists writing copy.
- jgrahamc 17y agoI agree about the journalists bit, but when he says in his letter includes the following: John Christy took a lot of heat over the satellite data, but nothing remotely like what is being turned on Phil Jones. It would have been romantic if John's error had been uncovered by journalists combing through stolen emails, or members of the public issuing freedom of information requests. But it wasn't. It was found by the US government funding a painstaking independent analysis of the satellite record, with John's co-operation, just as Phil has said he would be happy to co-operate with an impartial and scientific re-analysis of the surface temperature record, if anyone wants to fund such a thing. The implication is that none of these 'members of the public' are any good, the only thing worth considering is funded research.
- glymor 17y agoI agree he's too broad (and in other places as well). I had assumed it was just the heat of the argument. I also wonder about him invoking his professional capacity. It implicitly makes him a representative of scientists; in acting so he really should have been more nuanced.