But Occam's Razor says that it's better to trust the guy with the PhD than the guy without, so we're marginally superior sheep at least
Nope. Occam's Razor says nothing at all about trusting anyone. I think the one you're looking for is "argument from authority" and its a logical fallacy.
They weren't preventing dissenting opinions from being accepting into peer reviewed journals - they expressed disappointment in the fact that the peer review process wasn't doing its job: weeding out bad science.
Ah yes, true denialism at its finest.
By the way, the Earth isn't flat and wasn't created 10,000 years ago.
Those, as you called them, "warmers" are actually scientists publishing in peer reviewed journals. Despite the illegal and unethical breach of their private communication, no new facts concerning data and/or methods have been unveiled, only adding further to the list of ad hominem attacks.
The peer review process itself was subverted. They got published and anyone who wrote articles criticizing them got blocked, even to the extent of having independent editors removed if they dared question the "science" that they were producing.
I think we should take this denialism and bottle it for future generations. They'll never believe how stupid people can accept idiot rationalizations if it comes from a website run by self-proclaimed scientists.
Never mind cause-and-effect being reversed. If it comes from Realclimate, no matter how much its debunked, you'll believe it.
Correction: There are plenty of citations and links now to raw data. It wasn't too long ago that Mann was claiming that releasing data and source code was "giving in to intimidation" as Steve McIntyre recorded in 2005.
.
But by far the most important data set, HADCRU3 cannot be recreated from its source because Jones admitted weeks ago that the original data had been lost. I think we've discovered the motherlode of "faith-based science" if you think that's even remotely credible.
Give us all a break. Realclimate regularly and often trashes the reputations of scientists that they disagree with so often, its not even funny. Its purpose then and now was to rebut Steve McIntyre's pioneering analysis on the Hockey Stick.
What is clear is that the whole hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming through the addition of man-made greenhouse gases needs to be revisited from scratch, because we know less than we thought three weeks ago.
Nobody knows whether man-made release of carbon dioxide is on balance, a good thing or not.
I'd call that denialism and spin in its purest form. The plain fact is that the emails revealed the extent to which the "Hockey Team" were prepared to pervert data, methods, peer review and the scientific method in order to get the result they wanted.
And Realclimate is the propaganda front for the justification of all of those offences, as their own emails reveal.
You know that those "thousands of climate scientists" don't exist, don't you? Like the CRU's dataset, your statement was pulled from the place only your proctologist knows well.
There are at most 40 climate scientists involved in the IPCC and some of them are calling for chief protagonists of AGW scares to be barred from the IPCC.
We're in a long term warming trend since the nadir of the Little Ice Age of the early 17th Century. Long before carbon dioxide began to rise, temperatures in Central England rose by 3 degrees in about 36 years.
But then, where's the grant money going to come from if the world isn't in crisis?
Anyone who takes the word of an pseudonymous slashdotter to evaluate statements of truth about the reputation of a news source without proof, loses whatever credibility they had with me, and unlike him/her/it I understand what "poisoning the well" actually means in logic and reason and why its invalid as an argument.
Yes, that's the standard scientific approach - when it's feasible. But scientists in some fields do work with situations that are inherently not reproducible, at least not in a practical fashion. Astronomy is a prime example, where the scientists can't do many controlled experiments at all, much less reproduce them. Nobody considers astronomy to be less of a science because of this; they just hold each other to stricter data-handling rules than in other fields. They also implement parallel data collection by sending first telegrams and now email to colleagues to notify them of interesting events that should be watched by any observatories with the equipment available to do so.
Yes but astronomers are not asking me to accept massive energy cost increases and a much lower standard of living for myself and my family based on whether dark energy exists or not. And they still have to produce their data upon request.
.
Let's choose a much closer-to-home example: if you send a paper to the New England Journal of Medicine without supporting data and calculations they reject it outright regardless of conclusions, however provocative. Because there's such a thing as scientific fraud
Professor Woo Suk Hwang was published in the most prestigious scientific journals, and feted by academic institutions around the world. And he was found out by a bunch of Korean bloggers.
Of course, the e-mails from the CRU would support this if they weren't full of statements indicating data was being manipulated, that e-mails and other material subject to FOIA were not being systematically and deliberately purged, that the peer review system was not being gamed and manipulated to keep out any opposing views up to and including getting editors removed if they didn't do what the Team wanted.
If you can't check the data because the "dog ate my homework" then some is entitled to ask on what basis are we refactoring the entire world economy by causing an artificial shortage of energy?
But only nasty people can ask such questions. Only people with agendas.
Slashdot Mirror
But Occam's Razor says that it's better to trust the guy with the PhD than the guy without, so we're marginally superior sheep at least
Nope. Occam's Razor says nothing at all about trusting anyone. I think the one you're looking for is "argument from authority" and its a logical fallacy.
This happened three years ago when anyone attacked Wikipedia. Now everyone knows that Wikipedia is chock full of crap and is getting worse.
So its unreasonable to ask for the original data and the methodology before impoverishing everyone and refactoring the world economy?
The opposite of skepticism is gullibility.
Bingo!
Better still, make up the metadata where none exists to disprove UHI effects
Remember, its not scientific fraud if they don't ask you to produce the goods! Unless you're Hwang woo Suk...
An AC typed something into a keyboard. Amazing.
They weren't preventing dissenting opinions from being accepting into peer reviewed journals - they expressed disappointment in the fact that the peer review process wasn't doing its job: weeding out bad science.
Ah yes, true denialism at its finest.
By the way, the Earth isn't flat and wasn't created 10,000 years ago.
there is no legal requirement to publish ones personal communication, unless there is a court order.
Actually there is, if the communication is on a publicly funded server, and the communication is requested under FOIA.
Boring but true.
Those, as you called them, "warmers" are actually scientists publishing in peer reviewed journals. Despite the illegal and unethical breach of their private communication, no new facts concerning data and/or methods have been unveiled, only adding further to the list of ad hominem attacks.
The peer review process itself was subverted. They got published and anyone who wrote articles criticizing them got blocked, even to the extent of having independent editors removed if they dared question the "science" that they were producing.
I think we should take this denialism and bottle it for future generations. They'll never believe how stupid people can accept idiot rationalizations if it comes from a website run by self-proclaimed scientists.
Never mind cause-and-effect being reversed. If it comes from Realclimate, no matter how much its debunked, you'll believe it.
Correction: There are plenty of citations and links now to raw data. It wasn't too long ago that Mann was claiming that releasing data and source code was "giving in to intimidation" as Steve McIntyre recorded in 2005.
. But by far the most important data set, HADCRU3 cannot be recreated from its source because Jones admitted weeks ago that the original data had been lost. I think we've discovered the motherlode of "faith-based science" if you think that's even remotely credible.
Oh puleease!
Give us all a break. Realclimate regularly and often trashes the reputations of scientists that they disagree with so often, its not even funny. Its purpose then and now was to rebut Steve McIntyre's pioneering analysis on the Hockey Stick.
Nobody has said that.
What is clear is that the whole hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming through the addition of man-made greenhouse gases needs to be revisited from scratch, because we know less than we thought three weeks ago.
Nobody knows whether man-made release of carbon dioxide is on balance, a good thing or not.
I'd call that denialism and spin in its purest form. The plain fact is that the emails revealed the extent to which the "Hockey Team" were prepared to pervert data, methods, peer review and the scientific method in order to get the result they wanted.
And Realclimate is the propaganda front for the justification of all of those offences, as their own emails reveal.
You know that those "thousands of climate scientists" don't exist, don't you? Like the CRU's dataset, your statement was pulled from the place only your proctologist knows well.
There are at most 40 climate scientists involved in the IPCC and some of them are calling for chief protagonists of AGW scares to be barred from the IPCC. We're in a long term warming trend since the nadir of the Little Ice Age of the early 17th Century. Long before carbon dioxide began to rise, temperatures in Central England rose by 3 degrees in about 36 years.
But then, where's the grant money going to come from if the world isn't in crisis?
It means Mann-made climate change.
Anyone who takes the word of an pseudonymous slashdotter to evaluate statements of truth about the reputation of a news source without proof, loses whatever credibility they had with me, and unlike him/her/it I understand what "poisoning the well" actually means in logic and reason and why its invalid as an argument.
...but not verifiable.
Yes, that's the standard scientific approach - when it's feasible. But scientists in some fields do work with situations that are inherently not reproducible, at least not in a practical fashion. Astronomy is a prime example, where the scientists can't do many controlled experiments at all, much less reproduce them. Nobody considers astronomy to be less of a science because of this; they just hold each other to stricter data-handling rules than in other fields. They also implement parallel data collection by sending first telegrams and now email to colleagues to notify them of interesting events that should be watched by any observatories with the equipment available to do so.
Yes but astronomers are not asking me to accept massive energy cost increases and a much lower standard of living for myself and my family based on whether dark energy exists or not. And they still have to produce their data upon request.
. Let's choose a much closer-to-home example: if you send a paper to the New England Journal of Medicine without supporting data and calculations they reject it outright regardless of conclusions, however provocative. Because there's such a thing as scientific fraud
That's not the impression I got from reading the emails. No obvious "cooking" was there, at least to my eyes
I must say that I'm very impressed how advanced braille keyboards have got nowadays.
Come off it! Are you telling us that not having an ice cap a mile high over Chicago is an improvement?
Go ahead and do it if you don't believe him, assuming you're qualified to do so
Of course, if that other data depended upon data that is now no longer with us, which qualification will be required and will it involve clairvoyance?
Why is he employed? Good question.
Professor Woo Suk Hwang was published in the most prestigious scientific journals, and feted by academic institutions around the world. And he was found out by a bunch of Korean bloggers.
Of course, the e-mails from the CRU would support this if they weren't full of statements indicating data was being manipulated, that e-mails and other material subject to FOIA were not being systematically and deliberately purged, that the peer review system was not being gamed and manipulated to keep out any opposing views up to and including getting editors removed if they didn't do what the Team wanted.
If you can't check the data because the "dog ate my homework" then some is entitled to ask on what basis are we refactoring the entire world economy by causing an artificial shortage of energy?
But only nasty people can ask such questions. Only people with agendas.
Of course the term "denier" is a term of endearment...
Where are all of the glaciers from 10,000 years ago? You can't tell me that wasn't man-made warming as well.