Slashdot Mirror
The Science Credibility Bubble
eldavojohn writes "The real fallout of climategate may have nothing to do with the credibility of climate change. Daniel Henninger thinks it's a bigger problem for the scientific community as a whole and he calls out the real problem as seen through the eyes of a lay person in an opinion piece for the WSJ. Henninger muses, 'I don't think most scientists appreciate what has hit them,' and carries on in that vein, saying, 'This has harsh implications for the credibility of science generally. Hard science, alongside medicine, was one of the few things left accorded automatic stature and respect by most untrained lay persons. But the average person reading accounts of the East Anglia emails will conclude that hard science has become just another faction, as politicized and "messy" as, say, gender studies.' While nothing interesting was found by most scientific journals, he explains that the attacks against scientists in these leaked e-mails for proposing opposite views will recall the reader to the persecution of Galileo. In doing so, it will make the lay person unsure of the credibility of all sciences without fully seeing proof of it, but assuming that infighting exists in them all. Is this a serious risk? Will people even begin to doubt the most rigorous sciences like Mathematics and Physics?"
Who could have possibly predicted that accepting hundreds of billions of dollars from governments over the last couple of decades could have somehow politicized Science?
-Peter
Dwight D. Eisenhower - 1961.
"The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite."
Hundreds of billions??? You have the wrong side. 20 Billion dollars over 30 years for the entire world. Compared with 37Bn dollars given as subsidies to fossil fuel and nuclear power industry *EACH* *YEAR* by the *US* ALONE* and I think you find the finger points a different direction.
How many people would want a piece of THAT action?
Much more.
please, please, please get your facts straight on what these scientists did with their data when they 'threw out raw data'
they threw out siberian tree-ring data for certain years (i believe it was 1960 to present) that they were using to infer local temperatures and, instead, used the actual local air temperatures. this turned a graph that showed temperatures over a period of time longer than thermometers have existed in from one relying on only tree-ring data, to one relying solely on tree-ring temperature data to one using mostly tree-ring data with some tree-ring data replaced by more accurate actual temperature readings.
yes, the tree-ring data in this location diverges unexpectedly from the actual temps recorded. that is a problem to explain. but it has nothing to do with the fact that the temperatures really did continue to increase.
They threw out more than that. They also managed to "lose" raw data. And this loss was announced after the head of the CRU emailed that he would delete such data before he allowed it to be exposed under a FOIA request.
I don't think that means, what you think it means: Scientific Theory
I can not believe that someone on this forum, FOR NERDS, would make such a huge mistake on the REAL stuff that matters.
"You've never worked in the real world... they expect RESULTS!" -- RAY STANTZ TO Dr. Peter Venkman
As a Slashdot reader, you should know better...You might as well have misquoted a Python line, sheesh
---"What did I say that sounded like 'Tell me about your day?'"---
Other research centers also collect similar data, and some have open-sourced their algorithms.
And yes, their conclusions are similar to those of the CRU. That's what the GP means by saying that criticisms have been answered.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Yes, but the emails show that the preexisting bias is on the climate-scientists side, not the skeptic's side.
Look, we have a group of people discussing the deletion of emails in response to a FOI request. They also discuss boycotting forums that publish an opposing point of view. That these items were even considered is all the sign we need that something is not kosher. Sure, the science may remain legitamite, but these particular scientists are not to be trusted. They are snake-oil salesman who at best may have lucked into the correct side of a debate.
-Jeff
Please learn the difference between a dissenting opinion and a troll before you moderate.
I'm not sure if it was your intention, but your response seems to indicate that you think Al Gore is as equally un-qualified to speak about climate change as Palin. For the record, Gore at least studied in a climatology lab while at Harvard.
(Reposting this where appropriate)
People seem to forget the context of that "undermining the peer review process" took place.
They certainly tried to impact the peer review process. The paper in question resulted in half of the editorial board of the journal in question resigning over the peer review process that took place.
http://www.sgr.org.uk/climate/StormyTimes_NL28.htm
The paper in question turned out to be underwritten by the American Petroleum Institute.
As for Mann and Jones' apparent effort to punish the journal Climate Research, the paper that ignited his indignation is a 2003 study that turned out to be underwritten by the American Petroleum Institute. Eventually half the editorial board of the journal quit in protest. And even if CRU's climate data turns out to have some holes, the group is only one of four major agencies, including NASA, that contribute temperature data to major climate models — and CRU's data largely matches up with the others'.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1946082-2,00.html#ixzz0ZJERceR1
.
He is nothing more than a marketing man for carbon credit trading. He is the chairman for Generation Investment Management, partnered up with the former CEO of Goldman Sacks.
How convenient.
http://www.google.com/search?q=An+Inconvenient+Truth+inaccuracies
Yes. Some of the science was valid. But some of the facts presented as true were blatantly designed to mislead.
My point is, one either supports the scientific method or one does not. There are no grey areas. Either its science, or its propaganda. It cannot be both. 'An Inconvenient Truth' is propaganda masquerading as science, which is actually what this forum topic is about.
Participatory Governance : The only feasible option for a real democracy, where everyone really does have a say.
A picture can lie a lot better than a thousand words. I see that picture popping up in the climate denialist literature all over the place, without most places referencing the paper it is taken from.
The paper actually contains information that explains what you're seeing on the picture. The adjustments made are detailed, compared and explained. The references for the expanded reasoning can be followed.
Besides, the graph is about the US temperature measurements. US != global. It could show warming and global warming could not be happening or it could show a decrease in temperature and global warming could be highly severe. Your argument is simply bad.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
1. The data is from the NOAA, not the NASA.
2. The data is for the US land area, not the whole world.
3. Here is the paper listing and referencing the adjustments. Be the first to prove in detail how and why they are wrong to make and you'd be instantly famous.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say