3 ms·

(We've hit the reply depth limit...) > I can only comment on Carlos Castro, the link of yours at archivefreedom.org. Near as I can tell, he claims to have come

by crux_ 17y ago

(We've hit the reply depth limit...) > I can only comment on Carlos Castro, the link of yours at archivefreedom.org. Near as I can tell, he claims to have come up with a unified field theory. As far as I know, the arxiv filters out proofs of P=NP, the Riemann Hypothesis, unified field theory and similar things. So what? Uh... so, it's scientists banning topics that contradict the widely held scientific consensus. That's what. Why is it just fine in physics but a sign of conspiracy in climate science? > That's not the same as trying to get JMP shut down or editors ousted because it publishes papers on Bohmian mechanics. If they published, without substantial peer review, one of the 'scientists' I linked to, it would be quite justifiable to get them shut down or their editors ousted, wouldn't it? > With regards to angry muttering, there is far more than that. There is conclusive evidence of a conspiracy That is conclusive evidence of one guy being a jackass. But for the purposes of argument, let's assume he was indeed conspiring, rather than ranting. Who with? Who takes his orders and follows them? All of the field of climate science? Riiiiiiiight. Are all of the many independent centers who are reproducing CRU research in on it too? And the many thousands of scientists with the expertise to uncover fraud are all willing participants? All of this, established by this one email? Color me skeptical. > The fact is, Steve McIntyre is not a crackpot. That's your opinion of his plausibility, not a fact. (If you define "crackpot" as someone who repeatedly asserts views widely outside of the scientific consensus, without substantially altering said consensus, then he is, tautologically, a crackpot.) > The CRU folks conspired to keep data from him in order to prevent him from making further corrections to Briffa's hockey stick. I think it's a matter of the public record that he's been highly antagonistic to them. Are they "conspiring" or simply beginning to respond in kind? The latter is far more plausible to me. > With regards your point c), the people who conspired to hide data now claim that other data was lost. With regards to my (c), it's more that you were speculatively (or dishonestly) implying something that isn't true. > With regards to a hacking war, I wasn't advocating it. I'm simply pointing out that the recent incident does give us evidence that the consensus (which is not a substitute for solid science, BTW) is manufactured. That is just one interpretation of the emails. An equally plausible interpretation is that these scientists are under intense political attack, taking it personally and getting angry, and beginning to unwisely respond in kind.

yummyfajitas 17y ago
Who with? Who takes his orders and follows them? All of the field of climate science? You are making a logical fallacy, namely the excluded middle. I never made the assertions you are mocking. Are all of the many independent centers who are reproducing CRU research in on it too? And the many thousands of scientists with the expertise to uncover fraud are all willing participants? Why don't you point me to these independent centers? Can you show me a case for contemporary warming which does not rely on CRU data? Regarding Steve McIntyre, he corrected Mann's data. He altered the consensus, and (for a short time) had the best existing analysis. That, by definition, makes him not a crackpot. Regarding antagonism, that's how science works. A good scientist will pick apart and search for flaws in any theory including his own. This weeds out the bad from the good. If climate science is insufficiently antagonistic, that simply suggests their conclusions are more likely to be flawed. An equally plausible interpretation is that these scientists are under intense political attack, taking it personally and getting angry, and beginning to unwisely respond in kind. They are responding in kind within the scientific endeavor. That corrupts the scientific process, regardless of how emotionally reasonable their response is.
- crux_ 17y ago
  > You are making a logical fallacy, namely the excluded middle. I never made the assertions you are mocking. You alleged a conspiracy. If there's just one person ranting, there is no conspiracy; and a conspiracy of small number of people wouldn't be sustainable in a larger honest community, particularly under the scrutiny they are under. It's not a fallacy in this case: there is precious little middle ground for you to stand on. > Regarding Steve McIntyre, he corrected Mann's data. He altered the consensus, and (for a short time) had the best existing analysis. That, by definition, makes him not a crackpot. That makes him not a crackpot by your opinion. By mine, he barely altered the consensus with a minor correction while wildly overstating the impact of his changes, spending far more time doing advocacy, public relations, muckraking and FUD than actual science. > Regarding antagonism, that's how science works. A good scientist will pick apart and search for flaws in any theory including his own. I did not mean "I don't agree with your hypothesis" antagonism, I mean "I think you're a fraud!" antagonism. I think it's an understandable if unfortunate human response to get pissy and withdraw from engagement; and I think that's far more plausible than any actual fraud or conspiracy. > They are responding in kind within the scientific endeavor. That corrupts the scientific process, regardless of how emotionally reasonable their response is. Ah, so their internal shop-talk, posturing, boasting, etc. is part of the scientific endeavour, is it? What I've seen is that their "responding in kind" takes the form of advocacy and outreach (like RealClimate.org, which -- not coincidentally -- was the subject of several of the more damaging emails), not substantial alterations to the practice of their science. (Sidebar: I won't say there might not be substantial alterations to the research itself; for a parallel example in a different field, there are evolutionary biologists who are now choosing research topics specifically to provide more compelling evidence for evolution, rather than explore the unknowns of evolution, due to the rise of the "intelligent design" debate here in the US. However, the pattern there is to become -more conservative- in spending time and effort in making the obvious even more obvious, not more in becoming more alarmist or speculative.)

by crux_ 17y ago

yummyfajitas 17y ago

Who with? Who takes his orders and follows them? All of the field of climate science? You are making a logical fallacy, namely the excluded middle. I never made the assertions you are mocking. Are all of the many independent centers who are reproducing CRU research in on it too? And the many thousands of scientists with the expertise to uncover fraud are all willing participants? Why don't you point me to these independent centers? Can you show me a case for contemporary warming which does not rely on CRU data? Regarding Steve McIntyre, he corrected Mann's data. He altered the consensus, and (for a short time) had the best existing analysis. That, by definition, makes him not a crackpot. Regarding antagonism, that's how science works. A good scientist will pick apart and search for flaws in any theory including his own. This weeds out the bad from the good. If climate science is insufficiently antagonistic, that simply suggests their conclusions are more likely to be flawed. An equally plausible interpretation is that these scientists are under intense political attack, taking it personally and getting angry, and beginning to unwisely respond in kind. They are responding in kind within the scientific endeavor. That corrupts the scientific process, regardless of how emotionally reasonable their response is.

crux_ 17y ago
> You are making a logical fallacy, namely the excluded middle. I never made the assertions you are mocking. You alleged a conspiracy. If there's just one person ranting, there is no conspiracy; and a conspiracy of small number of people wouldn't be sustainable in a larger honest community, particularly under the scrutiny they are under. It's not a fallacy in this case: there is precious little middle ground for you to stand on. > Regarding Steve McIntyre, he corrected Mann's data. He altered the consensus, and (for a short time) had the best existing analysis. That, by definition, makes him not a crackpot. That makes him not a crackpot by your opinion. By mine, he barely altered the consensus with a minor correction while wildly overstating the impact of his changes, spending far more time doing advocacy, public relations, muckraking and FUD than actual science. > Regarding antagonism, that's how science works. A good scientist will pick apart and search for flaws in any theory including his own. I did not mean "I don't agree with your hypothesis" antagonism, I mean "I think you're a fraud!" antagonism. I think it's an understandable if unfortunate human response to get pissy and withdraw from engagement; and I think that's far more plausible than any actual fraud or conspiracy. > They are responding in kind within the scientific endeavor. That corrupts the scientific process, regardless of how emotionally reasonable their response is. Ah, so their internal shop-talk, posturing, boasting, etc. is part of the scientific endeavour, is it? What I've seen is that their "responding in kind" takes the form of advocacy and outreach (like RealClimate.org, which -- not coincidentally -- was the subject of several of the more damaging emails), not substantial alterations to the practice of their science. (Sidebar: I won't say there might not be substantial alterations to the research itself; for a parallel example in a different field, there are evolutionary biologists who are now choosing research topics specifically to provide more compelling evidence for evolution, rather than explore the unknowns of evolution, due to the rise of the "intelligent design" debate here in the US. However, the pattern there is to become -more conservative- in spending time and effort in making the obvious even more obvious, not more in becoming more alarmist or speculative.)