4 ms·

I think it is very very dangerous to blindly trust Perfect Science as we've seen with ClimateGate. I'm really not sure what you mean by this. I would agree tha

I think it is very very dangerous to blindly trust Perfect Science as we've seen with ClimateGate. I'm really not sure what you mean by this. I would agree that some of the scientists in the East Anglia behaved very unprofessionally. However, there was no proof of improper scientific conduct (e.g., data alteration) in this case. The point of the peer review process is that you don't have to trust an individual scientist (or human) to not succumb to competitiveness, greed, and deception, only that the vast majority of them wont. Given that it is highly unlikely that they will be corrupt in the first place, it is even less likely that they will be corrupt towards the same result. That is, given that scientists are practicing in completely different environments and countries all over the world it is highly unlikely that the incentives and disincentives will align perfectly for everyone. Therefore, when you see a scientific "consensus," the most likely result you should get from that is that there is supporting data, not that there is a massive conspiracy.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
tlack 16y ago
Are you serious? Have you read the direct quotes from their email? They're clearly colluding to change the data and get the report out there. Furthermore, on the subject of the peer reviews, it's almost possible for someone's peers to review their data and find flaws in it if they didn't do the research themselves and the data has been changed (as in the case of ClimateGate), to say nothing of a persons inherent laziness and desire to rubber stamp the work of their peers.
- mistermann 16y ago
  I think this case basically proves it's pointless. Advocates are exposed as colluding, doctoring data, and using connections to remove legitimate people who disagree from the conversation. Global warming will be passed as absolute truth. It seems similar to the ages when priests would silence people rather than address their scientific assertions. If the global warming deniers are wrong, it would seem to me to encourage their writings, and if the global warming advocates are confidently correct, it would seem, from a traditional scientific method perspective, they would welcome any and all discussion of their topic. Yet, they try to use government agencies to limit freedom of speech of their adversaries, and to hide the discussions they have amongst them selves? This is science? I don't proclaim to know what is right or wrong when it comes to global warming, but I have a sense of when someone is telling the truth or not. When someone uses the government to stop someone from talking, for reasons of "expediency", I get suspicious. And they don't even seem to care about that. Believe what we tell you, our cause is so important we can skip the traditional scientific process, all evidence to the contrary is conspiracy theories, end of discussion. Or, you'll be talking to our (taxpayer funded) lawyer.
- moultano 16y ago
  It disturbs me that you feel "direct quotes" are sufficient evidence rather than the emails themselves and the context in which they were sent.
- Locke1689 16y ago
  They're clearly colluding to change the data and get the report out there. They're clearly not. If you wish to make a claim I suggest you cite sources. Here are some[1][2][3]. [1] http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/04/latest-climate-hack-inquiry-clears-the-cru-again.ars http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/04/latest-climate-h... [2] http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/02/no-formal-charges-from-first-climate-e-mail-investigations.ars http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/02/no-formal-charge... [3] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a...
  - wooster 16y ago
    I don't have a horse in this race, but the Nature article has some spin to it: A fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support the denialists' conspiracy theories. In one of the more controversial exchanges, UEA scientists sharply criticized the quality of two papers that question the uniqueness of recent global warming (S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick Energy Environ. 14, 751–771; 2003 and W. Soon and S. Baliunas Clim. Res. 23, 89–110; 2003) and vowed to keep at least the first paper out of the upcoming Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Whatever the e-mail authors may have said to one another in (supposed) privacy, however, what matters is how they acted. And the fact is that, in the end, neither they nor the IPCC suppressed anything: when the assessment report was published in 2007 it referenced and discussed both papers. If you conspire to do something with someone else and don't act, it's still a conspiracy. It's the planning that makes it a conspiracy, not the actual act.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

tlack 16y ago

Are you serious? Have you read the direct quotes from their email? They're clearly colluding to change the data and get the report out there. Furthermore, on the subject of the peer reviews, it's almost possible for someone's peers to review their data and find flaws in it if they didn't do the research themselves and the data has been changed (as in the case of ClimateGate), to say nothing of a persons inherent laziness and desire to rubber stamp the work of their peers.

mistermann 16y ago
I think this case basically proves it's pointless. Advocates are exposed as colluding, doctoring data, and using connections to remove legitimate people who disagree from the conversation. Global warming will be passed as absolute truth. It seems similar to the ages when priests would silence people rather than address their scientific assertions. If the global warming deniers are wrong, it would seem to me to encourage their writings, and if the global warming advocates are confidently correct, it would seem, from a traditional scientific method perspective, they would welcome any and all discussion of their topic. Yet, they try to use government agencies to limit freedom of speech of their adversaries, and to hide the discussions they have amongst them selves? This is science? I don't proclaim to know what is right or wrong when it comes to global warming, but I have a sense of when someone is telling the truth or not. When someone uses the government to stop someone from talking, for reasons of "expediency", I get suspicious. And they don't even seem to care about that. Believe what we tell you, our cause is so important we can skip the traditional scientific process, all evidence to the contrary is conspiracy theories, end of discussion. Or, you'll be talking to our (taxpayer funded) lawyer.
moultano 16y ago
It disturbs me that you feel "direct quotes" are sufficient evidence rather than the emails themselves and the context in which they were sent.
Locke1689 16y ago
They're clearly colluding to change the data and get the report out there. They're clearly not. If you wish to make a claim I suggest you cite sources. Here are some[1][2][3]. [1] http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/04/latest-climate-hack-inquiry-clears-the-cru-again.ars http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/04/latest-climate-h... [2] http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/02/no-formal-charges-from-first-climate-e-mail-investigations.ars http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/02/no-formal-charge... [3] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a...
- wooster 16y ago
  I don't have a horse in this race, but the Nature article has some spin to it: A fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support the denialists' conspiracy theories. In one of the more controversial exchanges, UEA scientists sharply criticized the quality of two papers that question the uniqueness of recent global warming (S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick Energy Environ. 14, 751–771; 2003 and W. Soon and S. Baliunas Clim. Res. 23, 89–110; 2003) and vowed to keep at least the first paper out of the upcoming Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Whatever the e-mail authors may have said to one another in (supposed) privacy, however, what matters is how they acted. And the fact is that, in the end, neither they nor the IPCC suppressed anything: when the assessment report was published in 2007 it referenced and discussed both papers. If you conspire to do something with someone else and don't act, it's still a conspiracy. It's the planning that makes it a conspiracy, not the actual act.