3 ms·

Anti-AGW is pro-science, not anti-science

19 points by jacoblyles 16y ago

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
jgrahamc 16y ago
To my mind when you start by framing the debate as anti-X, pro-Y you've already failed.
jgrahamc 16y ago
The whole CRU thing, which revealed total abuse of data (complete lack of data audit trail and so many "corrections" that they could have found the Book of Mormon in Shakespeare) is a great example. It did reveal things like that, but it didn't reveal actual faults in the science.
- teilo 16y ago
  He did not say that it did.
  - jgrahamc 16y ago
    Of course, you are correct. But the problem with this article is that instead of digging into the science and actually criticizing it and finding mistakes, these people create an impression of the science being faulty by bringing up details that are not scientific. The CRU thing is a case in point. If you look at all the fuss about the emails and look at the science, you'll find that the science doesn't appear to have changed, just the impression of the scientists. So folk like this make a big noise about nothing of significance.
    - teilo 16y ago
      >folk like this make a big noise about nothing of significance. It is not "nothing of significance" that CRU could not reproduce their own results because they destroyed their intermediate data and failed to document how they produced it. His criticism on this point is spot-on. What happened with CRU is a travesty, even though, as you say, the underlying science did not change. The people who should be the most vocal about the CRU mess are those scientists who have concluded that AGW is real. But instead, the response is, over and over, "This is no big deal. Move along." In so doing they have only increased the suspicion of the skeptics, and added fuel to the fire of the deniers. And so what you say of "these people" actually applies to those he criticizes. Scientists do science. When they do politics and public relations instead of science, they do it badly. When critics arise, what they should do in answer the critics with science. But when they answer with dogma and PR spin, they, to use your words, "create an impression of the science being faulty by bringing up details that are not scientific." The science isn't popular? Sorry, but that's too bad. It's not the job of scientists to popularize and defend their data and conclusions with anything but more science. Stick to the science. The truth will out.
teilo 16y ago
This is an excellent non-hysterical article, that both sides in the debate need to take to heart.
acqq 16y ago
Anti-AGW is absolutely anti-science and that can be proved by their target group. Their base target is people who don't know enough, a few more educated people but on margins and finally the people with direct interest in keeping the consumption as is. They don't "point to red flags" in a sensible way, they make immense noise targeted to the ignorant masses, and it works -- in keeping the world not changing. Which can't end good, no matter what people who want to close their eyes hope.

19 points by jacoblyles 16y ago

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

jgrahamc 16y ago

To my mind when you start by framing the debate as anti-X, pro-Y you've already failed.

jgrahamc 16y ago

The whole CRU thing, which revealed total abuse of data (complete lack of data audit trail and so many "corrections" that they could have found the Book of Mormon in Shakespeare) is a great example. It did reveal things like that, but it didn't reveal actual faults in the science.

teilo 16y ago
He did not say that it did.
- jgrahamc 16y ago
  Of course, you are correct. But the problem with this article is that instead of digging into the science and actually criticizing it and finding mistakes, these people create an impression of the science being faulty by bringing up details that are not scientific. The CRU thing is a case in point. If you look at all the fuss about the emails and look at the science, you'll find that the science doesn't appear to have changed, just the impression of the scientists. So folk like this make a big noise about nothing of significance.
  - teilo 16y ago
    >folk like this make a big noise about nothing of significance. It is not "nothing of significance" that CRU could not reproduce their own results because they destroyed their intermediate data and failed to document how they produced it. His criticism on this point is spot-on. What happened with CRU is a travesty, even though, as you say, the underlying science did not change. The people who should be the most vocal about the CRU mess are those scientists who have concluded that AGW is real. But instead, the response is, over and over, "This is no big deal. Move along." In so doing they have only increased the suspicion of the skeptics, and added fuel to the fire of the deniers. And so what you say of "these people" actually applies to those he criticizes. Scientists do science. When they do politics and public relations instead of science, they do it badly. When critics arise, what they should do in answer the critics with science. But when they answer with dogma and PR spin, they, to use your words, "create an impression of the science being faulty by bringing up details that are not scientific." The science isn't popular? Sorry, but that's too bad. It's not the job of scientists to popularize and defend their data and conclusions with anything but more science. Stick to the science. The truth will out.

teilo 16y ago

This is an excellent non-hysterical article, that both sides in the debate need to take to heart.

acqq 16y ago

Anti-AGW is absolutely anti-science and that can be proved by their target group. Their base target is people who don't know enough, a few more educated people but on margins and finally the people with direct interest in keeping the consumption as is. They don't "point to red flags" in a sensible way, they make immense noise targeted to the ignorant masses, and it works -- in keeping the world not changing. Which can't end good, no matter what people who want to close their eyes hope.