4 ms·

He did not say that it did.

by teilo 16y ago

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.

4 ms·

He did not say that it did.

by 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.