3 ms·
> 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 pers
by 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.)
- yummyfajitas 17y agoI alleged a conspiracy between a few people at the CRU to hide data, oust critics from professional societies and have journals shut down. Is that even in dispute? Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise...Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same?...We will be getting Caspar to do likewise. How do you interpret this as anything other than a conspiracy (between Jones, Keith, Gene and Caspar, not the entire climate science community, just to be 100% clear) to delete emails? Rather than arguing against my simple, well supported conspiracy argument, you instead implied that I argued for some vast and implausible conspiracy. Why not just go for broke and act as if I claimed Phil Jones was behind 9/11? Regarding McIntyre, whether or not he made a major improvement to the existing record or a minor incremental one, the point is that he is correct. A crackpot is a person with wild and incorrect theories completely unsupported by evidence. Ah, so their internal shop-talk, posturing, boasting, etc. is part of the scientific endeavour, is it? Ousting dissenters from professional societies certainly is, as is trying to get journals shut down. Concerning antagonism, "I think you're a fraud" is the best kind to have. I wish it were more common, but it's too time consuming to use on an everyday basis.
- crux_ 17y ago> Rather than arguing against my simple, well supported conspiracy argument, you instead implied that I argued for some vast and implausible conspiracy. Why not just go for broke and act as if I claimed Phil Jones was behind 9/11? If you're claiming or implying, as you have been until now, that 'conspiracies' are the only reason that the current scientific consensus is still standing, then it has to be a vast conspiracy, no? > Regarding McIntyre, whether or not he made a major improvement to the existing record or a minor incremental one, the point is that he is correct. A crackpot is a person with wild and incorrect theories completely unsupported by evidence. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. We can argue back and forth as to whether he's a crackpot or not but all we'd be doing is arguing about the definition of the word. (And it would remain a matter of opinion and not fact!) It is, however, true that his more substantial allegations practically require a widespread conspiracy, or something similarly dramatic, within the current consensus in order to be correct.