Like many, I have been astonished by the breaches of good scientific practice uncovered by the Climategate emails. But to my mind, the end goal here is not to punish those involved but to
- Enforce good data and code archiving practices. Our goal should be that no FOIA is necessary to get the information needed to replicate a published study
- Create an openness to scrutiny and replication which human nature resists, but generally exists in most non-climate sciences.
I worry that over the last few months, with the Virginia FOIA inquiry and the recent investigations of Michael Mann, skeptic’s focus has shifted to trying to take out their frustration with and disdain for Michael Mann in the form of getting him rung up on charges. I fear the urge to mount Mann’s head in their trophy case is distracting folks from what the real goals here should be.
I know those in academia like to pretend they are not, but professors at state schools or who are doing research with government money are just as much government employees as anyone in the DMV or post office. And as such, their attempts to evade scrutiny or hide information irritate the hell out of me. But I would happily give the whole Jones/Mann/Briffa et all Climategate gang a blanket pardon in exchange for some better ground rules in climate science going forward.
Skeptics are rightly frustrated with the politicization of science and the awful personal attacks skeptics get when alarmists try to avoid debate on the science. But the correct response here is to take the high ground, NOT to up the stakes in the politicization game by bringing academics we think to be incorrect up on charges. I am warning all of you, this is a bad, bad precedent.
Postscript: I now your response already — there are good and valid legal reasons for charging Mann, here are the statutes he broke, etc. I don’t disagree. But here is my point — the precedent we set here will not be remembered as an academic brought down for malfeasance. It will be remembered as an academic brought down by folks who disagreed with his scientific findings. You may think that unfair, but that is the way the media works. The media is not on the skeptic side, and even if it were neutral, it is always biased to the more sensational story line.
My reply to your postscript is pretty simple:
I’m not going to lower my expectation of scientists to conduct LEGAL, as opposed to proper, scientific research and to prosecute those who don’t, just to appease the lowest common denominator.
If these people broke the law, and I believe its pretty likely they did (certainly there is enough suspicion to charge them and see what happens in court), then they need charged and convicted. I don’t care what the mindless media says about it. The law is the law and I’m not willing to ignore that because some biased, hysteria driven journalist is going to come up with some stupid narrative to make the guys enforcing the law of the land look bad.
Sorry, we need to make sure we keep fighting for not only good science in climate studies, but generally good logic and reason behind everything. This includes climate science, as well as all science, plus the creation and enforcement of our laws. I’d say it is you that is losing the sight of big picture here.
It’s like when the do-gooders say “punishing the criminal won’t bring his victim back to life”. The idea of punishing people who do the wrong thing isn’t vengeance but to prevent other people doing the same thing. It would be nice if we could just say let’s forgive and hope it never happens again, but the world doesn’t work that way.
Ground rules to be followed by whom? To be enforced by what agency? They already have ground rules that do not apply to the politically connected, or climate changers.
Martha Stewart (and others) have discovered that its not the act but the cover-up that gets you an extended vacation at the states expense.
There is always the hope that if Mann is found guilty of defrauding the public he may turn over evidence on the conspiracy to mislead the political world and the honest public with regard to the threat presented by emitting CO2 in return for a wrist slap. Perhaps he may even have info on Pachauri’s financial shenanigans.
Phil Jones showed, when threatened with being thrown under a bus, how much more capable one IPCC “scientist” is of torpedoing the activist agenda with a few words – no significant warming – compared to years of real sceptical science by real scientists.
I’d disagree strongly with your postscript – you’re making the mistake of trying to appease the unappeasable. There are a lot of people in academia who have developed the notion that they have an “absolute right” to taxpayer (or student loan, but I repeat myself) dollars with which they can do whatever the hell they want. There’s a definite sense of entitlement here that has crossed neatly and cleanly over the line separating simple avarice with outright fraud. It needs to be squashed, and squashed hard.
In an ideal world, these people would have to fund themselves and this wouldn’t be an issue – but until we reach that world they need to learn to play by at least the meager set of rules that are in place. If they don’t like that, they’re absolutely free to seek employment elsewhere.
David Wallace MD. Dr. James Khodabakhsh at Beverly Hills Vision specializes in laser eye surgery in the city of Beverly Hills.
Like many, I have been astonished by the breaches of good scientific practice uncovered by the Climategate emails.
Then you are easily astonished.
“Climategate” was a joke.
Only an idiot would care about emails in the first place.
Think about it.
Emails. (???)
Why would you read emails (of all things) in order to figure out if a science issue is real or not?
What’s the damn point?
It’s truly deeply, madly stupid.
Did the Americans go to the moon or not?
Do you really need the letters the engineers wrote to each other back in ’69? Can you honestly concieve of a letter written by a NASA engineer that would let you believe that the moon landings never happened?
Go ahead and indulge you wildest, paranoid fantasy. What would the contents of that letter be?
Think of the most damning things that could be confessed in secret by the top NASA engineer. Something that would be a wet dream to every Moon-Landing denier loser out there.
1)The continued failures of the Saturn 5 rocket.
2)The half-mile of surface dust on the moon that would sink any lander.
3)The payoffs to the Soviets to make them look the other way.
4)The secret film studio in the Nevada desert.
All of it. Written down in a letter and signed in the engineer’s own blood in front of credible witnesses.
So what?
How do you get from that fantastic letter (or a thousand others just like’em) to concluding that the Americans never went to the moon?
It can’t be done.
Or how about DNA? Is there really such a thing?
Should we all reserve judgement until we read Crick’s personal diaries?
Dumb.
Emails, personal diaries, private letters, overheard conversations in bars, graffitti written on toilet walls etc…..It’s all worthless crap.
Knock, knonk!
That’s the sound of reality at your door.
If you want to judge the veracity of a scientific issue-then you look at the WORK. You look at the RESEARCH. You demand PEER-REVIEW and tonnes of it.
Anything else is just a sideshow and a waste of time.
<>
No disrespect, but I couldn’t disagree more. How else will these individuals be forced to mend their ways? What such scientists say often can influence government policy, which in turn can result in billions of dollars of tax payers money being wasted on flawed policies.
These ‘scientists’ do need some form of punishment… no, not a whipping; not a death sentence… but certainly some form of formal discipline… and perhaps a requirement that they complete a professional course on ethics, and a professional course on the scientific method. And until they have done so, their research should not even be peer reviewed.
These scientists also need to show remorse for their sins.. their failure to adhere to the scientific method… their failure to act honestly… their failure to act with due care and diligence.
They should also be removed from any involvement with the IPCC and its forthcoming AR5 report, and their peer reviewed papers should not be allowed to be cited in the AR5.
I say all this because if, for example, a humble registered company auditor can end up being severely punished for not meeting the highest professional standards, and can lose his/her livelihood for getting an audit report wrong, and even end up in jail, why can’t the public expect the same standards of accountability from scientists who live off government funding and are expected to be trustworthy in their research and behaviour?
Cedric,
Emails happen to be a form of this thing we call communication. We gifted humans have been blessed with the ability to communicate through our rather unique development of language. Through the use of this language we can communicate ideas. Again, thanks to the specialized and unique development of the human brain, these ideas can then become a great many things, including actions or intentions of action. Thus, these emails could include communications of actions that would be violations of state and federal laws, or even violations of ethical science.
So this whole argument that “its just a stupid email” (paraphrasing of course), is little more than an appeal to ridicule. Of course we need to judge they science through the data and logic presented and not through emails. However, if the science has been compromised through unethical behavior or even illegal behavior, you then have doubt in the truthfulness of the science being presented, including in this case most specifically, the publication of data opposing the theory pushed by a select few.
Anyway, that’s why emails can matter.
Thus, these emails could include communications of actions that would be violations of state and federal laws, or even violations of ethical science.
Thus, these books written by top NASA engineers could include communications of actions that would be violations of state and federal laws, or even violations of ethical science. Therefore, there was no moon landing.
Thus, these private letters written by top NASA engineers could include communications of actions that would be violations of state and federal laws, or even violations of ethical science. Therefore, there was no moon landing.
Thus, these conversations whispered in bars by top NASA engineers could include communications of actions that would be violations of state and federal laws, or even violations of ethical science. Therefore, there was no moon landing.
Of course we need to judge they science through the data and logic presented and not through emails.
Then don’t contradict yourself.
Tell the peddlers of the emails to sod off.
It’s stupid to pay the emails any attention whatsoever.
The instant you do that, you have missed the entire point of peer-reviewed research.
However, if the science has been compromised through unethical behavior…
Then the only way to discover this is to look at the work-not emails.
You have to look at the peer reviewed science.
Nothing else matters.
…you then have doubt in the truthfulness of the science being presented…
Science cannot and is not represented in emails.
Not even a little bit.
Not in biology, or physics or any other field.
Climatology and the rest of the supporting physical sciences are not some kind of strange exception.
The only arena that counts is the peer-reviewed work.
Nothing else matters.
…the publication of data opposing the theory pushed by a select few.
There is no conspiracy. Looking at emails to either support a scientific theory or dismiss a scientific theory is stupid. It’s dumb.
Of course we need to judge they science through the data and logic presented and not through emails.
Exactly.
“But, but the emails…”
No.
We need to judge they science through the data and logic presented and not through emails.
“But, the corruption in the emails…”
No.
We need to judge they science through the data and logic presented and not through emails.
“Hang on a minute, what about that one special email that said…”
No.
We need to judge the science through the data and logic presented and not through emails.
There is no alternative.
No exception is made. Not for any scientific field.
Not even for someone’s own special pet hobby horse.
“But, but the CRU….”
No.
We need to judge the science through the data and logic presented and NOT through emails.
“… the precedent we set here will not be remembered as an academic brought down for malfeasance. It will be remembered as an academic brought down by folks who disagreed with his scientific findings….”
The media will spin it that way, but scientists will know that they can go to jail for committing fraud on the taxpayer’s dime. To me, that’s worth the risk of the mass media spinning the story into a witch hunt.
Cedric
You are making a straw-man argument.
No one says the e-mails prove CAGW is not valid.
Scientific studies which remain unfunded so far will do that. Billions of dollars are being spent attempting [and filing] to prove CO2 causes everything from volcanoes to earthquakes and cold winters and little or nothing is being spent to separate out the natural heating and cooling so we can study what effect, if any, CO2 really has.
All warming since records began took place during a cycle of excess El Ninos and all cooling took place in a cycle of La Nina’s. CO2 may have little or nothing to do with it.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gif
What the e-mails do show is :
1) Bullying of magazine editors who publish studies which are contrary to CAGW dogma.
2) A circle the wagons mentality of us against them.
3) A willingness to engage in evading the law if it is inconvenient for the story they are trying to sell.
4) A willingness to hide and refuse to turn over the data required for another scientist to duplicate their research. This is absolute poison to the scientific method.
5) Other crooked actions too numerous to mention.
They got caught with their hand in the cookie jar and got it spanked hard.
No one says the e-mails prove CAGW is not valid.
Yes they are.
Type in “climategate” on google. Haven’t you heard the news? This whole global warming nonsense has been exposed as a hoax. Just look at this here email blah, blah, blah…
There is an endless pile of cretinous, blaring examples of this silliness freely available.
Billions of dollars are being spent attempting [and filing] to prove CO2 causes everything from volcanoes to earthquakes and cold winters and little or nothing is being spent to separate out the natural heating and cooling so we can study what effect, if any, CO2 really has.
Yes, of course. It’s a vast scientific conspiracy. The fix is in. The science is corrupt. They are cooking the books. Al Gore something or other. Orthodoxy. What about Galileo? They laughed at Einstien. Just check out this blog. Etc, etc, etc
(yawn)
I know. It’s been done a zillion times on the blogosphere. Don’t you ever get tired of the same empty handwaving? Don’t you ever get just a little bit suspicious and ask questions?
If you want to understand the veracity of the science that is being done in the field of climatology…then you go to the peer-reviewed research. All of it.
Nothing else matters.
If you are concerned about possible hanky-panky in the field of climatology…then you go to the peer-reviewed research. ALL OF IT!
That’s the meat.
Nothing else matters.
If you start scrabbling around for other stuff then you are automatically abandoning the scientific process.
Focus on the work. ALL OF IT!
All warming since records began took place during a cycle of excess El Ninos and all cooling took place in a cycle of La Nina’s. CO2 may have little or nothing to do with it.
No, that won’t do.
I get my science from carefully vetted science sources. I get my science strictly from the people on the ground who do the actual work themselves with their own hands. All of them.
All of the scientists involved from all the relevent physical sciences from all around the world.
No cherry picking. No anomoly hunting. No creative “re-interpretation” done by armchair wannabees, the media or political pundits.
NOAA is indeed a great source of information.
Yet I accept what they say as a PACKAGE DEAL.
I won’t focus solely on one small item that might lend a glimmer of hope to an “alternative” view. I’ll take the COMPLETE package PLUS the conclusions drawn. Conclusions drawn by NOAA themselves. In their own words.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/
NASA is indeed a great source of information.
Yet I accept what they say as a PACKAGE DEAL.
I won’t focus solely on one small item that might lend a glimmer of hope to an “alternative” view. I’ll take the COMPLETE package plus the conclusions drawn. Conclusions drawn by NASA themselves. In their own words.
http://climate.nasa.gov/
In fact, I am very comfortable getting my science information from every single scientific community on the planet.
No exceptions.
The Royal society, the USGS, the RMET, the British Antarctic survey, the CSIRO, the Meteorological Society, the Americal Physical Society etc.
All of them. Right across the board. No cherry picking allowed.
What the e-mails do show is…
I don’t care about your opinion of the emails.
It’s that simple.
The emails are not important. Not in the slightest.
“Climategate” was a pile of fluff and nonsense.
Go ahead and burn everything ever written by the scientists mentioned in connection with the emails.
Press a magic button and have all their research work covering many decades totally vanish forever.
Make the scientists themselves vanish off the face of the Earth.
Have every single scientist they somehow mind-controlled in to doing their satanic will at the behest of their Chinese Overlords suddenly be kicked to the curb.
Name your own number. 20 scientists or 200 scientists or 2000 scientists? Grab a whole handful and scatter their careers and everything they have ever touched to the four winds.
It doesn’t matter.
Imagine the shock release of new piles of genuine emails that pander to your deepest suspicions and that spell out in painful clinical detail the horrors of the Al Gore mind control bunker. Go for it.
The science is still the thing that is important.
The work.
The process of peer-review.
There is no “scientific conspiracy”. Such a thing is an oxymoron.
“Everybody” knows that “them there scientists” are up to no good. Yet nobody has figured out how they’ve managed to secretly subvert the peer-review process and the multiple, independent lines of physical evidence that support the science. Not even hypothetically speaking.
Somehow ” the fix is in” by magic or something.
No further details are forthcoming.
There is no secret cabal of scientist or whatever that somehow “controls it all” or “influences it all”.
There’s no secret cabal in biology.
There’s no secret cabal in physics.
There’s no secret cabal in climatology.
They all operate exactly the same way they always have.
I enjoy this blog, but unfortunately Warren does not delete blog posts from obvious trolls. So the discussions are pretty much worthless, since they inevitably get hijacked.
Cedric
What you say all boils down to the argument from authority: “So many scientists can’t be wrong.”
.
They can be and they are, it’s as simple as that !
.
Until a great epiphany this year the consensus was that CO2 caused warm winters. Now the consensus seems to be that it causes cold winters. If we have a string of warm winters the consensus will shift back again ! The science says that whatever is happening now is caused by global warming.
That includes earthquakes, volcanoes and any natural disaster which happens.
.
Is there any question why rational people are skeptical ?
.
The climatologists have amplified a minor [.7 ° C/120 year] warming into a catastrophe which simply isn’t happening !
.
From 1998 to today there has been zero warming. [sad for the alarmists, but true]
.
For the the fairy story they are telling to be true we must be in a natural cooling period in which .36 ° C of cooling took place in the last 12 years to counterbalance the warming the CO2 released should be causing. [If we are going to get 3 ° C in 100 years we must get at least .3 every 10 years ]
.
If the models input this cooling for 100 years they get no warming at all so they MAGICALLY remove the cooling in the future and temperatures shoot up like rocket. [Many times anything ever recorded.] Sounds like Bovine Scatology to me. But I am being skeptical.
.
What causes this massive cooling we aren’t experiencing because of CO2 ? The ocean events like El Nino’s and La Nina’s which are much more powerful than CO2 in periods of less than 60 years have been equal so that isn’t the cause is it ?
.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
.
Their excuse is aerosols, which is one of the least known factors in all of climatology. It is like “dark matter” which may not be matter and may not be dark. They puff up this unknown to balance their models and then MAGICALLY whisk it away when they want warming to begin. Bovine Scatology pure and simple.
.
In 1998 with 20 years of [1.2 ° C/century] warming behind them they had good reason to be concerned. With 12 years of non warming behind them they need to re-examine their concerns.
.
The warming of 1978 to 1998 was clearly the result of excess El Nino’s over La Nina’s during that period and no CO2 is needed to explain it.
.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
.
Even if the fastest warming we have ever seen of 1.2 ° C per century were to continue for another 90 years thee is no crisis. Since we have seen 12 years of ZERO warming since 1998 this is highly unlikely.
.
There simply is no crisis even if Dr Hansen thinks there is.
Cedric,
The “Climategate” emails do not prove much of anything about the science. HOWEVER, the code and data sets that were also released DOES prove that they added what APPEARS to be unjustified modifications to their data sets. Added to that, they admit to having deleted the original, non-modified data sets, so they themselves cannot even check their work, much less anybody else wishing to reproduce their models independently.
I would refer you to Eric S.Raymond’s review of the code and data in November 2009 (“http://esr.ibiblio.org/?m=200911”) and the specifically damning piece at “Hide the Decline Part 1: The Adventure Begins” (“http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1447”). From the point of view of code review and understanding, you’d be hard pressed to find a more knowledgeable reviewer.
By all means, ignore the emails (they just provide evidential support of a supposition many had made earlier based on the stonewalling that FoI requests had received) where the science is concerned (with the caveat below) and look at what we KNOW of the data that was released. Their filtering and adjustment methods were slipshod at best, they misused statistics, used crappy computer code to “message” their data, then threw the original, unadulterated data away, keeping only the “value added data”. At the very least, this should inspire serious skepticism of ANY results they bring to bear, because it makes fully independent review extremely difficult, time consuming, and expensive.
There is a crew of scientists now working to recover raw instrumental data, and build collections of paleo data sets to reproduce CRU’s and the “hockey team’s” work, but they are likely 2-3 years from usable data, then they must build new, unadulterated simulations and go through the entire prediction-observation-modification cycle a few times to get to the point where CRU should be right now. In other words, because of the Team’s poor methodology, we are going to have to wait for this new team to reinvent the wheel before we can have any sort of confidence in the results.
Now, extrapolate this further. CRU has for decades had the reputation of having the most complete and accurate data set for climate research in the world. So, their data has been used to do everything from design simulation models to calibrate instrumental data sets used by other researchers. Their taint is on almost every piece of modern climate data. Places that have avoided this taint (e.g. the MIT climatologists) have been saying for quite some time that AGW is seriously overblown, mostly because their instrumental readings and simulations DO NOT SHOW the kind of predicted temperature rise that those others do.
And the final problem with your suggestion of only trusting peer review is that the emails DO show a concerted effort to undermine the peer review process. I’m not sure how this jibes with your trust in peer review, but it makes me feel extremely uncomfortable trusting anything these guys have published (though, that’s not nearly as damning an indictment as the facts above).
@ net dr What you say all boils down to the argument from authority: “So many scientists can’t be wrong.”
No.
I have no faith in scientists.
Science is not a religion.
Scientists can be wrong. I get it. So does NASA.
Yet I have confidence in the scientific process.
Not the people, the process.
It works for all the branches of science. There are no exceptions.
The same work standards I demand from biology and physics and geology are the same ones I demand from climatology.
I demand peer-reviewed research. Lots of it.
All of it, in fact.
There is no good alternative.
Until a great epiphany this year…
No, I’m sorry but I only get my science from people who do the work. All the people that do the work.
I don’t mean that as an insult.
I have a standard, boring, old-fashioned methodology.
That methodology does not include just taking people’s word for things over the internet. For all I know, you may be just recycling stuff that you got from some other blog or contrarian.
I don’t get my science that way.
Not just climate science but any science. No exceptions.
Is there any question why rational people are skeptical ?
I don’t have a problem with skepticism. Skepticism should lead you back to the science and toss any emails (pro or con) into the garbage.
For the the fairy story they are telling to be true…
A fairy tale? I’ve heard that before from somewhere.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504
No, I don’t accept that NASA is telling the public fairy stories. I am not prepared to just take your word for this. If the science as done by NASA and NOAA and all the others is “just a fairy tale” then it all comes back to the peer-reviewed research. All of it.
There simply is no crisis even if Dr Hansen thinks there is.
I don’t care about what Dr Hansen thinks. Nor do I care about what you think that Dr Hansen thinks. That’s not how I get my science information.
I’m not saying that to make you angry or insult you.
I am saying that because I want you to understand that climatology is not about the personal opinion of one person, nor is it about the personal opinion of a small secret club or anything like that.
It’s about the work. All of it.
That’s all I care about.
For example: I accept the Theory of Evolution. I do not accept it because I think that Darwin was a great guy and never did anything wrong. Biologists don’t worship Darwin.
He was a pioneer in his day and he got the ball rolling and he deserves due credit but biology is not some cult devoted to the aged writings of just one man.
Dr Hansen is neither here nor there.
@Don.
The “Climategate” emails do not prove much of anything about the science.
To be more precise, they prove nothing about the science. It’s not how someone should gauge the veracity of scientific claims. Not in any field. Ever.
There’s just no good excuse for it. It’s shameful.
HOWEVER, the code and data sets…
No. The is no quality control. There’s no rigourous standards being applied here.
If somebody did something wrong in the way they did their work-then enter the scientific arena and demonstrate it. There’s a problem with the statistics?
Demonstrate it.
Enter the scientific arena.
Expose the global scientific hoax.
There’s a problem with some code or something?
Demonstrate it.
Write up the paper. Enter the scientific arena.
Expose the global scientific hoax and claim the Nobel Prize.
Same goes for gripes and grumbles about models, surface station data, glacier monitoring, or whatever seems to be the talking point of the day gathered from the internet.
I would refer you to Eric S.Raymond’s review…
Why? Why would you ask me to trust Raymond’s review?
Why should I treat him any more differently from say, Dr Hansen or Charles Darwin? I don’t do the “He said, She said” thing. I only follow the science.
Anybody can write a “review”.
There is a crew of scientists…
Oh, well that changes everything. Am I supposed to take your word for this? Or should you provide me their names and then I’m supposed to take THEIR word for whatever it is they are supposed to be doing?
How does their work overturn (or could even concievably overturn) what NASA and NOAA and all the other scientific communities have done over the many years of research.?
CRU has for decades…
Burn CRU to the ground. Make everything they have ever handled vanish into thin air.
It changes nothing.
CRU is not some unique lynch-pin that magically holds the modern world of climatology together. It’s not the lair of Dr Evil from which all climate information springs forth.
It’s not the card at the bottom of a house of cards that will make “everything come tumbling down”.
No branch of science is set up that way. It doesn’t work. Abandon the conspiracy theories.
And the final problem with your suggestion of only trusting peer review is that the emails DO show a concerted effort to undermine the peer review process.
Yet before you said…
The “Climategate” emails do not prove much of anything about the science.
Either we go with the emails or we don’t. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Either you adopt a rigourous standard for judging the veracity of scientific issues-OR YOU DON’T.
You must not play favourites and pick and choose the method that suits you best based solely on the science topic at hand.
I’m not sure how this jibes with your trust in peer review, but it makes me feel extremely uncomfortable trusting anything these guys have published…
Why only “these guys”?
Why not all the peer-reviewed papers ever written?
In any science topic?
Either you toss the emails or you adopt uniform standards across the board. No exceptions allowed.
Take everything ever written by “these guys” and ignore them completely. If that makes you feel more comfortable then go with that. Fair enough.
(No sarcasm or insult intended.)
There is a vast mountain of peer-reviewed research covering decades that has nothing to do with “these guys” that still stands.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9X50lH-XxHI
NASA is doing it’s job.
NOAA is doing it’s job.
Every single scientific community on the planet is doing it’s job the boring, old-fashioned way. Nothing has changed.
NASA did not lie to you about the moon landings and they are not lying to you now about climate change.
The goal is to provide a disincentive for scientific fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation.
Legal deterrents are a last resort here, but they most definitely are an option, particularly in the public funding arena.
Cedric
.
A CONSPIRACY OF SELF INTEREST
.
Is global warming a conspiracy ? Did a group of scientists go to a back room and make up Global Warming to make a lot of money. Of course not.
.
What exists is a “conspiracy of self interest”. It is to the best interest of all climate scientists for enough plausibility be found in Global Warming AKA climate change AKA climate disruption AKA weirding weather to keep the lights on and their paychecks coming in. If global Warming were to be found to be entirely natural, funding and staffs would be drastically cut.
.
Does it take a conspiracy with a central co-coordinator to assure us that human beings will act like human beings ? Many like the late Stephen Schneider think that exaggerating certainties and hiding uncertainties is justified for the good of the planet. Wrong headed [in my opinion] idealism plays a major part. The scientist who acts like an advocate is not a scientist, and cannot be objective.
.
Is the price of sugar a conspiracy or the result of thousands of people dong what they think is in their own self interest. ? The “invisible hand” works in all other aspects of human civilization, to believe it doesn’t in climate science is naive.
.
To be fair around 1998 when there had been many [20] years of continuous warming I can see why the climatologists were concerned. I would have been too. They projected the current temperature rise to mean 3 ° C by 2100. [They exaggerated the rate by about 3 X] They didn’t have a crystal ball to tell them that over the next 12 years temperatures would be flat or slowly fall. And they didn’t have enough knowledge of history to know this 60 year cycle was normal. Studying global warming seemed to make sense. Of course once the laboratories had been built and the scientists hired there was a “constituency “ for further research.
.
Most scientist just want to study something and get paid for it and the best way to do that is to go with the flow. Climate change or global warming in the title of your study triples the chances of it being funded by government or Greenpeace or WWF. After you take their money you had better find serious consequences if you ever want to get any more $.
.
In addition Climategate has proved that the CO2 mafia is so firmly entrenched that it would be professional suicide to try to do research into non CO2 based causes of our slight warming. Anyone without tenure would be a fool to go against the CO2 mafia and the hockey team. Those with tenure are the only ones in a position to deny the juggernaut. [Lindzen, Spencer, Curry withstand a ton of abuse and Ad Hominem attacks and are very brave about it ]
.
There is a pile of money to be extracted from a gullible public. That is where the true conspiracy exists. Cap and trade’s only function is to make tens of trillions of dollars to companies like Enron and the Chicago Carbon Exchange [deceased]. Cap and trade or hideous taxes make no sense even if you believe in AGW because they export jobs to the coal powered factories of 3 rd world countries. So the worldwide emission of CO2 goes up.
.
Then there are other one worlder types who didn’t invent global warming but are happy to let it be a battering ram to help them get a redistribution of wealth and a world government.
.
Notice that I don’t claim these people invented global warming but they are using it for their own agenda.
Cedric
Climate science is more like astrology than astronomy or the other “hard” sciences.
Astrology knows all of the answers even when it obviously doesn’t know them. Astronomy on the other hand talks of “dark matter” which is arguably one of the the most important things in the universe but yet any astronomer will cheerfully tell you that it may not be matter and it may not be dark.
Medicine discovered the need for “double blind testing” because too many drugs were getting good test results but were no more effective than placebos.
Every climate scientist knows what the results he hopes to get if he wants further funding and it would take a super human to report adverse results. Scientists like Dr Hansen and his minions take the temperature and ADJUST IT without supervision. This is an obvious conflict of interest since his models are evaluated on the temperature rise. These models are looking bad because the temperature has failed to rise in 12 years so the temptation to ADJUST temperatures up or fail to correctly adjust temperatures down to account for UHI is tempting.
Since Dr Hansen is not a true scientist but a advocate I can’t believe he wouldn’t shade the temperature in his favor. His GISS is always the hottest of all the indexes.
Double blind experiments are not feasible in climate science and the near religious fervor makes objectivity suspect so how can climate science claim to be as accurate as medicine ? It obviously isn’t.
Peer reviewed studies are written by skeptics too.
There is a list of 400 peer reviewed studies which disprove some aspect of the CAGW myth.
Here are just a few.
Peer reviewed articles disputing some aspect of AGW.
A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1049-1058, December 2007)
– Craig Loehle
– Reply To: Comments on Loehle, “correction To: A 2000-Year Global Temperature Reconstruction Based on Non-Tree Ring Proxies”
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 5, pp. 775-776, September 2008)
– Craig Loehle
A Climate of Doubt about Global Warming
(Environmental Geosciences, Volume 7 Issue 4, pp. 213, December 2000)
– Robert C. Balling Jr.
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions (PDF)
(International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp. 1693-1701, December 2007)
– David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer
A critical review of the hypothesis that climate change is caused by carbon dioxide
(Energy & Environment, Volume 11, Number 6, pp. 631-638, November 2000)
– Heinz Hug
A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 34, Issue 13, July 2007)
– Anastasios A. Tsonis, Kyle Swanson, Sergey Kravtsov
A scientific agenda for climate policy? (PDF)
(Nature, Volume 372, Issue 6505, pp. 400-402, December 1994)
– Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen
A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 26, Number 2, pp. 159-173, May 2004)
– Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels
– Are temperature trends affected by economic activity? Reply to Benestad (2004) (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 27, Number 2, pp. 175–176, October 2004)
– Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels
So claiming you only accept peer reviewed studies doesn’t prevent you from being a skeptic at all.
No one says the e-mails prove CAGW is not valid.
Then ditch the emails. Focus on the science.
In addition Climategate has proved…
No.
You are not listening.
Basing your judgement of any science topic on emails is unreasonable and illogical and unscientific. No selective treatment allowed.
Ditch the emails. Focus on the science. Focus on the work.
A CONSPIRACY OF SELF INTEREST.
(not that it’s a conspiracy or anything)
Is The Theory of Evolution a conspiracy ? Did a group of scientists go to a back room and make up Evolution to make a lot of money. Of course not.
BUT 😉
What exists is a “conspiracy of self interest”. It is to the best interest of all biologists for enough plausibility be found in Darwinism AKA Natural Selection AKA Common Descent AKA Nazi Eugenics to keep the lights on and their paychecks coming in. If Darwinism were to be overturned by Intelligent Design Creationism, their funding and staffs would be drastically cut.
Does it take a conspiracy with a central co-coordinator to assure us that human beings will act like human beings?
No…BUT 😉
Many like the late Stephen Jay Gould think that exaggerating certainties and hiding uncertainties is justified for the good of the planet. Wrong headed [in my opinion] idealism plays a major part. The scientist who acts like an advocate is not a scientist, and cannot be objective.
Hmm, sounds amazingly familiar.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA230_1.html
Most scientist just want to study something and get paid for it and the best way to do that is to go with the flow. Evolutionism or Darwinism in the title of your study triples the chances of it being funded by government or leftists or atheists. After you take their money you had better find serious consequences if you ever want to get any more $.
Hmm, sounds familiar…
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA321_1.html
There is a pile of money to be extracted from a gullible public. That is where the true conspiracy exists.
(Not that there’s a conspiracy or anything)
…the Evolution mafia is so firmly entrenched that it would be professional suicide to try to do research into Intelligent Design based causes of our origins.
(not that the mafia is a criminal conspiracy or anything)
Notice that I don’t claim these people invented Darwinism but they are using it for their own agenda.
(not that “them there scientists” twisting and manipulating results all over the world so that they can get money and futher their own agenda is…a conspiracy or anything)
Climate science is more like astrology than astronomy or the other “hard” sciences.
Wow.
In fact, you could say that climatology is “just a fairy story”, right? It’s amazing that no university faculty or scientific community that deals with any other branch of the sciences has figured this out yet. Probably they stay silent because they are being paid off somehow.
All of them. Everywhere.
Every climate scientist knows what the results he hopes to get if he wants further funding and it would take a super human to report adverse results.
How? By magic?
What actual physical mechanism do you propose that would allow the global community of scientists to co-ordinate their efforts covering all of the supporting physical sciences and all independent lines of evidence? What are the nuts and bolts of the global operation?
Scientists like Dr Hansen and his minions take the temperature and ADJUST IT without supervision…
Is Dr Hansen the mastermind? How does he tell scientists in Germany (for example) what to do? Or do they tell him what to do?
How?
How do they do this? When did they start doing this? Before they started doing this-who was in charge of the temperature fudging committee before they came along? How does the conspiracy work? Or does it all mysteriously just work because…it just works somehow?
Since Dr Hansen is not a true scientist but a advocate I can’t believe he wouldn’t shade the temperature in his favor. His GISS is always the hottest of all the indexes.
Ah, it’s a question of your “belief”? Hmm.
You are just asking me to take your word on this? That would be very unwise. I only get my science information from those that do the scientific research themselves. All of them.
Double blind experiments are not feasible in climate science and the near religious fervor makes objectivity suspect so how can climate science claim to be as accurate as medicine It obviously isn’t.
Double blind experiments are not feasible in biology and the near religious fervor makes objectivity suspect so how can Darwinism claim to be as accurate as medicine. It obviously isn’t.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA220.html
(shrug)
Peer reviewed studies are written by skeptics too.
Sure. Only I don’t cherry-pick.
I am prepared to accept ALL of them. ANY scientist that gets out there and gets their hands dirty in the name of science and enters the scientific arena gets my attention and respect. Any scientist that is doing the heavy lifting that science demands (as opposed to quietly collecting a pension or running a blog or peddling a book) and is prepared to defend their research in the brutal, unforgiving battle zone that is the scientific process of peer-review gets the right to be heard.
All of them…plus their conclusions.
No cherry picking. No isolated, lonely graph shorn of context. No “helpful re-interpretation” by a science wannabe.
Peer-review.
For all science topics.
Cedric:
“The same work standards I demand from biology and physics and geology are the same ones I demand from climatology.
I demand peer-reviewed research. Lots of it. All of it, in fact.”
I agree that it is important to judge science by scientific standards, but I disagree that “peer-review” is that standard.
The application of the scientific method is standard against which I would judge scientific papers. The most sound scientific conclusions are based on empirical data derived from repeated, double-blind, controlled experiments.
The field of medicine is filled with theories that were well-supported by “studies” reported in the peer-reviewed literature, but were shown to be wrong when finally tested in controlled clincial trials. A modern example would be the belief in the health benefits of hormone replacement therapy for postmenopausal women. The purported health benefits were supported by numerous peer-reviewed population studies, but the therapies were found to be harmful when actually tested in controlled clinical trials. It is now generally accepted that the population studies were flawed becaused women who sought hormone therapy were a self-selected group who were more likely to follow healthy lifestyles than the general population.
In the field of climate science, many of the most important theories cannot be tested in controlled experiments. We are limited because we have only one earth with which to experiment.
That does not mean that climate science is worthless, but it does mean that it cannot be trusted to the degree of that one can place in other branches of science that are more firmly based in experimental science. I would never suggest that the theories of climate science have anywhere near the empircial support that exist for many of the basic theories of physics or biology, notwithstanding how large the body of peer-reviewed literature may be.
In areas such as climate science, where controlled experiment are often not possible, it becomes important that scientists are honest and transparent with their data. A good paper will highlight weaknesses in the data and possible flaws in the inferences drawn from the data. The climategate emails are important because they demonstrate rather clearly to anyone paying attention the lengths to which some of the most important paleoclimatologists were not honest and transparent.
Great post Pauld, I’ve said the same exact thing I don’t know how many times, but probably not with such elegance as your post above.
I second the motion. Great Post Pauld.
I have said many of the same things but not as eloquently.
The double blind experiment was created because researchers who knew which drug was being tested tended to consciously or unconsciously please their employers. This resulted in worthless drugs getting studies which showed them to be great.
I don’t know how to do a double blind experiment with climate. Many scientists are activists with an axe to grind and even the rest have to know what side their bread is buttered on.
If a researcher gets a grant to study the effects of global warming on flying wombats from the U S government or greenpeace you can bet the results will show it to be very harmful if not fatal.
@netdr
Have not ignored your posts. My reply is still awaiting moderation. (March 19, 2011, 8:49 pm) Sorry for the delay. I’m sure it will appear soon.
@Pauld
I agree that it is important to judge science by scientific standards, but I disagree that “peer-review” is that standard.
There is no other standard. Take away the process of peer review and you open the door to every crackpot and loon out there. It would be a fantastic victory for every HIV denier, anti-vaccer, creationist nutter out there.
The application of the scientific method is standard against which I would judge scientific papers.
And the only way to find out if the scientific process was followed in scientific papers is by reading the peer reviewed papers. There is no good alternative.
The field of medicine is filled with theories that were well-supported by “studies” reported in the peer-reviewed literature, but were shown to be wrong when finally tested in controlled clincial trials.
Medicine is science. Anybody who takes cancer treatments that have not been subject to peer reviewed research is a damn fool and ripe for the plucking by quacks everywhere. Science gets stuff wrong. It’s not a religious dogma. I get it. NASA gets it. Yet it is self-correcting and it remembers it’s mistakes and there is no good alternative to the study of reality. Science works.
I would never suggest that the theories of climate science have anywhere near the empircial support that exist for many of the basic theories of physics or biology, notwithstanding how large the body of peer-reviewed literature may be.
The field of climatology does not stand isolated in some tiny bubble with it’s own special, mysterious rules. It’s fully and openly supported by all of the Earth sciences. A climatologist can’t do their job without data and co-operations from many different science fields. No branch of science, not physics, not biology, has called out climatology as somehow not being a real science or something.
The peer-reviewed literature was produced the old-fashioned way. Climatology does not have some secret cheat or exception made in it’s favour. Climatology, just like medicine, follows the scientific process. There is no branch of science, no science community, no science faculty that looks down on climatology and finds it less that fully scientific.
A good paper will highlight weaknesses in the data and possible flaws in the inferences drawn from the data.
Yes, I agree with you. That is why it is so very important to follow the process of peer review. That’s how possible weaknesses in data and flaws are exposed.
That’s the mechanism.
It’s not enough that well-meaning memebers of the public look over the shoulders of scientists and gawp at their work. If a paper on an extremely complicated scientific subject is to be published-then it must be read by people who have the training and the specialized knowledge to understand it fully.
The climategate emails are important because they demonstrate rather clearly…
Nothing can be demonstrated clearly by emails.
An email will NOT highlight weaknesses in the data and possible flaws in the inferences drawn from the data.
An email will NOT highlight strengths in the data and possible insights in the inferences drawn from the data.
Climategate was a sideshow and impressed only those who never stopped to ask “Why am I being shown emails? Do they really think I am going to lap this up and forget about the work?”.
Either you rely on the process of peer-review, the process of papers complete with data and detailed observations and experiments being read by people who can read the technical jargon therein…or you don’t.
You do not judge the value of a medical claim by emails.
You judge it by the research and work involved.
Research and work fully and openly documented in peer-reviewed papers. No short cuts. No hanky-panky.
All branches of science, all research submits to peer-review.
None of them are evaluated by emails. Not now. Not ever.
Either you have scientific standards or you don’t.
No double standards.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ng1AaHBVSk
I don’t know how to do a double blind experiment with climate.
Therefore…climatology is some kind of a hoax.
Just like biology.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA220.html
Many scientists are activists with an axe to grind and even the rest have to know what side their bread is buttered on.
Yes, of course. Somehow they have managed to corrupt science on a global scale and magically subvert the process of peer-review. A grand conspiracy that has lasted for decades and all we have to do is to take your word for it.
If a researcher gets a grant to study the effects of global warming on flying wombats from the U S government or greenpeace you can bet the results will show it to be very harmful if not fatal.
This kind of paranoid thinking sits very well with any science denial topic, not just climatology.
The 9/11 troofers use it.
The anti-vaxers use it.
The HIV deniers use it.
The creationists use it.
No modifications necessary.
Either you accept the scientific work that has been done or abandon any pretence that you really care about it in the first place.
(sigh)
Addendum:
A good paper will highlight weaknesses in the data and possible flaws in the inferences drawn from the data.
Yes, I agree with you. That is why it is so very important to follow the process of peer review. That’s how possible weaknesses in data and flaws are exposed.
That’s the mechanism.
……………………………….
Correction: That’s the necessary but not sufficient first step of the mechanism. From peer-reviewed papers, other researchers can take the experiments and obeservations clearly explained therein and conduct their own independent work on them. If the results obtained are not verified by others in the field, then the value of the paper and the quality of the work will be judged accordingly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCiwLTgtjek
Cedric
Correction: That’s the necessary but not sufficient first step of the mechanism. From peer-reviewed papers, other researchers can take the experiments and obeservations [SIC] clearly explained therein and conduct their own independent work on them. If the results obtained are not verified by others in the field, then the value of the paper and the quality of the work will be judged accordingly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCiwLTgtjek
*************
In an ideal world that would be great but the climate alarmists don’t do that. I think more unbiased non climate professionals should peer review articles requiring expertness in a particular field.
For example: Letting climate scientists with a stake in the results adjust temperatures is wacky and a conflict of interest. This is the exact opposite of the double blind “gold standard”.
Dr Mann and his hockey team is the poster boy of the way climate science does peer review.
1) They hide their data so others cannot duplicate their results.
[Dr Mann made the mistake of publishing in a journal which demanded that data be released. He kicked and screamed but the skeptics prevailed.]
2) They have their buddies do the peer review.
[The field is small and if the paper supports CAGW the review is perfunctory. They don’t even need to know exactly who wrote the paper but they usually do.]
3) They won’t release their computer source code even if it is germane to the results they claim to have gotten. Their logic escapes me.
[Dr Mann’s code found hockey sticks in “red noise”. ]
Dr Mann’s study relied heavily on statistics which he was an amateur at. It took two professionals to show him how to do it right. When done properly the hockey stick broke. The alarmists have spent years tying to rehabilitate the hockey stick but so far no dice.
There have been many peer reviewed studies using non tree ring proxies which prove the Roman and Medieval warm periods were warmer than today and the little ice age was much colder.
The point is that peer review is the best that we have but is no proof of correctness. It might interest you to know that skeptics are capable of doing peer reviewed studies. One of my favorites which explains temperatures since the beginning of records without CO2 is:
http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/two_natural_components_recent_climate_change.pdf
Here is the abstract.
Two natural components of the currently progressing climate change are identified. The first one
is an almost linear global temperature increase of about 0.5°C/100 years, which seems to have
started in 1800–1850, at least one hundred years before 1946 when manmade CO2 in the
atmosphere began to increase rapidly. This 150~200-year-long linear warming trend is likely to
be a natural change. One possible cause of this linear increase may be the earth’s continuing
recovery from the Little Ice Age (1400~1800); the recovery began in 1800~1850. This trend
(0.5°C/100 years) should be subtracted from the temperature data during the last 100 years when
estimating the manmade contribution to the present global warming trend. As a result, there is a
possibility that only a small fraction of the present warming trend is attributable to the
greenhouse effect resulting from human activities.
It is also shown that various cryosphere phenomena, including glaciers in many places in the
world and sea ice in the Arctic Ocean that had developed during the Little Ice Age, began to
recede after 1800 and are still receding; their recession is thus not a recent phenomenon.
The second one is oscillatory (positive/negative) changes, which are superposed on the linear
change. One of them is the multi-decadal oscillation, which is a natural change. This particular
natural change had a positive rate of change of about 0.15°C/10 years from about 1975 (positive
from 1910 to 1940, negative from 1940 to 1975), and is thought by the IPCC to be a sure sign of
the greenhouse effect of CO2. However, the positive trend from 1975 has stopped after 2000.
One possibility of the halting is that after reaching a peak in 2000, the multi-decadal oscillation
has begun to overwhelm the linear increase, causing the IPCC prediction to fail as early as the
first decade of the 21st century.
The important finding is that the actual warming over a long time period has been 1/2 ° C per century and is from natural causes. [Even if CO2 is to blame the actual warming is benign and will cause no catastrophe] In the near future we should see actual cooling. In 1998 we were at the top of the sine wave but 12 years of non warming proves to me that we have passed the peak and cooling has begun.
RE: Peer review.
The system is broken and needs fixing but it is all that we have. I propose more skeptical reviewers and professionals in non climate disciplines be included in the peer review process.
The abuses of the process have been well documented.
Relying on peer reviewed studies does not preclude anyone from believing that CAGW is invalid.
“The climategate emails are important because they demonstrate rather clearly…
Nothing can be demonstrated clearly by emails.”
Why is that? I am not aware that anyone disputes their authenticity. The people who wrote the emails are free to disclose additional emails that they believe will put the climategate emails in context. They have chosen not to.
The emails disclose the intent and methods of their authors to keep hidden important information that would be valuable in evaluating their published works. The “hide the decline” emails, for example, disclose that the “divergence” problem with climate proxies was intentionally obscured in published articles, as well as the IPCC.
Why does one need to rely upon “peer-reviewed” literature to identify misleading graphics that have been clearly documented?
PaulD,
“Why does one need to rely upon “peer-reviewed” literature to identify misleading graphics that have been clearly documented?”
Of course, I’m only guessing, but Cedric probably wants to rely only on peer-reviewed lit because either: 1) he knows it, like a loaded die, can give him his desired result due to unethical behavior as shown in the climate-gate emails or 2) he is not scientist, nor particularly close to any scientific field, and does not understand the limitations peer review.
Peer review is just one of several possible methods to attempt to assure that published science meets some kind minimal standard in a variety of catagories depending on the journal. Its main advantages on other methods (such as an web-based community review, or even no review at all) has little to do with actually ensuring good science. Instead, it is done primarily because it is easy. While it would be far better for editors of journals to allow hundereds or even thousands of people to review a paper, the editor simply doesn’t have enough time to sort through all those reviews and pick out what seem to be the most relevent criticisms. Second, while a no-review process would ensure more science is published faster, it would make it difficult for the journals themselves to retain some sort of “prestige” factor. We quickly see journals just disapear as people post findings and their thoughts on it, to websites, leaving it up to the reads to judge the validity of the experiments and the conclusions for themselves. And even in this method, quality of science would probably not change much, you’d just find more “filler”. Plus, we’d have to construct a new system of keeping track of scientific contributions, rather than journal search mechanisms. None of this is a bad thing, its just different. And now that the peer-review system is in place, its going to be hard to dislodge it.
Not that I’m particularly advocating that we do dislodge it, we just need to understand its limitations. One of the biggest limitations of course is in the reviewers themselves. Can they put personal beliefs aside and make fair critisisms? And given the corruptions of man, we know not everyone will be able to do this. So, how do we police it? Particularly, how do we police it, if it is an editor? Ultimately, it will be up to the readers of the journals and other scientists in the field to validate published research, but that can take years to correct, as we’ve seen with the “hide the decline”.
Cedric quoting Pauld responds: “I agree that it is important to judge science by scientific standards, but I disagree that “peer-review” is that standard.
There is no other standard. Take away the process of peer review and you open the door to every crackpot and loon out there. It would be a fantastic victory for every HIV denier, anti-vaccer, creationist nutter out there.”
Really. I can sort out fairly well what is written by crackpots and loons without relying upon the “peer reviewed” literature. I also can make independent judgments about articles that appear in the “peer reviewed” literature. Relying on peer review as the gate keeping mechanism for “truth” is lazy and not particularly reliable.
Cedric
In my opinion Pauld wins this one.
He has shown that the answers of climate science do not meet the standards demanded of the other sciences due to the impossibility of double blind experiments. Also there is no way to haul the earth into the laboratory and perform experiments on it.
Twenty or more factors are all influencing the climate at any time and it is impossible to sort out the influence of any one of them. Personal opinion and bias plays a big influence on which one is thought to cause what.
Comparing climate science to medicine or physics is a poor comparison. It is more like Astrology.
Their self admitted willingness to hide the contradictory evidence and to exaggerate the certainty of their pet theory has turned them into the Rodney Dangerfield of the sciences.
“We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
I would not be vindictive against all the scientists caught “massaging” the figures but we have to face the reality of the situation.
Despite the climate not behaving as they predicted we have reached a situation where snow is the new warm. It simply beggars belief with what they come up with, it now appears that CO2 is to blame for the Japan earhquake…where will it all end?
The answer is we don’t know and there should be clear daylight at the end of the AGW tunnel by now but still the nonsense carries on.
Therefore the chance to get Mann on charges and in a courtroom has to be taken.
In an ideal world that would be great but the climate alarmists don’t do that.
Climate alarmists?
I don’t get my science from “climate alarmists”.
I get my science from working scientists. All of them.
Like the people at NASA, for example.
I don’t get my biology from “Darwinists”.
I get my biology from biologists.
I think more unbiased non climate professionals should peer review articles requiring expertness in a particular field.
What do you mean “unbiased non climate professionals”?
Where’s the “bias” in the first place?
Letting climate scientists with a stake in the results adjust temperatures is wacky Dr Mann and his hockey team…
This is terrible…if it’s true.
How is the global community of climate scientists adjusting temperatures? How do they work in sync with each other? Are they just magically adjusting temperature data or are they adjusting all the other data unrelated to temperature too covering all the Earth sciences? Why are all the other science communities remaining silent on this amazing news…or are they in on it too? How did the Chinese/Jews/Illuminatii get to them?
Dr Mann and his hockey team…
If you don’t like Dr Mann then ignore his work.
Burn it all.
He doesn’t hold the whole field of climatology in his hands. It’s not like he’s a prophet or something silly. He’s just a guy. If he died tomorrow and all his work vanished with him, it would make no difference.
Science is not about personalities. Science is not embodied in experts. It’s all about the work.
The point is that peer review is the best that we have but is no proof of correctness.
Where did I say it was? How have I misrepresented the process of peer review in any way?
It might interest you to know that skeptics are capable of doing peer reviewed studies.
Yes, but I don’t cherry pick as you do. I don’t go anomoly hunting. I don’t carefully select one lonely graph shorn of context and conclusion by the very people who made it. I don’t need to create a small list of peer-reviewed papers from the vast material available.
I don’t mutter darkly about unfounded charges that “the fix is in” just because I don’t like the results that science is telling me.
I welcome all peer reviewed research. ALL OF IT. When such research withstands continued scrutiny and is built upon then I will be the first to cheer. If a paper withers on the vine…then thems the breaks.
Creationists have their own small list of peer reviewed papers too. (Just don’t examine it too hard.)
Relying on peer reviewed studies does not preclude anyone from believing that CAGW is invalid.
The climate denier community does not rely upon peer reviewed studies. They fail in that arena.
The vast body of evidence as represented in the peer-reviewed literature firmly supports the conclusions about the nature of our planet’s climate as summed up by NASA and NOAA and all the other scientific communities on the planet.
That is why focus is on books, seminars, newspaper clippings, TV interviews, blogs and ( of all the inane things) stolen emails.
Just like the antivaxxers and the creationists.
@PaulD
“Nothing can be demonstrated clearly by emails.”
Why is that?
Because emails are just emails. In science, when someone wants to understand someone else’s work then the researcher needs to publish in an open forum where everything can be put on display in front of people who have the qualifications to test and probe the word concerned.
You can’t do that in emails. Nor can you do it with text messages or toilet graffitti.
If someone tries to sell you a cancer treatment that’s backed up by emails…then run. Find a real hospital and a real cancer clinic.
Would you accept a new scientific theory based on emails?
Have you ever even heard of such a thing?
I would hope your standards are much higher than that.
If you would not accept such a thing via emails, then the reverse must be true.
Either you have scientific standards or you don’t.
Either you want evidence presented in context and fufilling at least some minimun standard…or you don’t.
Why does one need to rely upon “peer-reviewed” literature to identify misleading graphics that have been clearly documented?
If there really is hanky-panky going on and there is “clear documentation” to prove it…then write up a paper.
Enter the scientific arena. Should be a slam dunk.
Unless of course, there’s some dark conspiracy?
@Wally I’m only guessing…
Don’t guess. Find out for sure.
…he knows [the peer reviewed literature], like a loaded die, can give him his desired result due to unethical behavior as shown in the climate-gate emails.
Several problems here.
First, it’s not my result. I have nothing to do with it.
Honest.
It’s all the work of NASA and NOAA and all the rest of the science communities.
Secondly, there is no “desired result”. If you have evidence of a global conspiracy of scientific corruption then don’t keep us in suspense. Tell us how “they” do it.
…unethical behavior as shown in the climate-gate emails…
It’s funny how everybody around here understands that you can’t judge the science by reading emails but…but…but…but…
No, it won’t do. Either you are prepared to judge a science topic on the work that is done or you don’t. Emails can tell you nothing about scientific research one way or the other.
Somebody has fudged some figures? Then read their peer reviewed research. Find something dodgy? The numbers don’t correspond with reality? Great!
Then enter the scientific arena and demonstrate it to the world. Submit your better research that really does do the job properly and expose the fraud. Claim your Nobel Prize.
…he is not scientist, nor particularly close to any scientific field, and does not understand the limitations peer review.
All branches of science rely on peer-reviewed research.
That’s the standard.
I’m not making this up or being arbitrary.
Peer reviewed research is done by scientists, just like the good people at NASA. Peer-review is not a perfect system but it does do a jim dandy job of weeding out the crackpots.
Creationist simply hate peer-review.
Peer review is just one of several possible methods…
Come up with a better system and do it. Go for it.
In the meantime though, enter the scientific arena and get some work done.
Not that I’m particularly advocating that we do dislodge it, we just need to understand its limitations.
Glad to hear it. Peer-review does indeed have limitations. Scientists from all branches of science know and understand this. Nobody is blindy worshipping peer-review. It’s a system created by humans, after all. But it’s the best system science has created so far. Focus on the research presented in that arena and it becomes clear that the preponderance of evidence is firmly weighted on one side, just like the Theory of Evolution and Germ Theory. NASA’s conclusions on climate are not considered to be “out there” or oddball.
Really. I can sort out fairly well what is written by crackpots and loons without relying upon the “peer reviewed” literature.
Yet you have no standard the rest of the world can use.
I admire your intellectual independence but I can’t ask you to scrutinise my medical treatments every time I buy medications.
You probably have other things to do.
Why would you not want others to look at research presented in the field? Why expose yourself to your own limited training and experience? Science is complicated. One person can’t understand it all.
People spent their entire lives studying and researching just one small sliver of it.
I go to a biologist for my biology because…biology is hard. I go to a lawyer for legal advice because the law is complicated. I go to a petroleum engineer for my car’s energy needs because I no absolutely nothing about petroleum engineering.
We live in a society of specialists. That, however, does not mean we are enslaved to them or must just have “faith”.
Peer-review is a system that prevents us from just crossing our fingers and hoping that we’ve made the right choice and the expert we are choosing to believe today is not some super-smart con artist with a really dazzling smile.
Anyone, even smart educated people, can be fooled by professional fraudsters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZzwRwFDXw0
Cedric
Letting climate scientists with a stake in the results adjust temperatures is wacky Dr Mann and his hockey team…
This is terrible…if it’s true.
**88How is the global community of climate scientists adjusting temperatures?
****************
The people at GISS and CRU are not unbiased.
Yes it is unacceptable and it is true.
[Easy. I am glad you asked ! They collect the data [GISS & CRU especially ] they adjust the data or fail to adjust the data. Items like Urban heat island effect is under compensated for and there is no supervision to keep them honest. Since Dr Hansen has a model which has been doing poorly since 2007 they have every motive to eke out a little more warming. — NetDr]
*** How do they work in sync with each other? ****
[They have the same objective so if they collude it is barely necessary. GISS is always the hottest and Dr Hansen and his minions are involved. The satellites show less warming and more cooling than the ground station and the gap gets wider every year. Someone failed to tell them what they should be seeing and GISS can’t adjust them so it figures. — NetDr]
**Are they just magically adjusting temperature data or are they adjusting all the other data unrelated to temperature too covering all the Earth sciences? **
[Adjusting the temperature in the recorded history is enough for them other fudging is left to people like Dr Mann. — NetDr].
Why are all the other science communities remaining silent on this amazing news…or are they in on it too?
[Actually skeptics have been livid about it for some time. The alarmists like it that way why should they object ? You expect honesty ?? They haven’t shown any of that yet.
Here is a survey of all surface stations in the USA which shows 69% of them to be wrong by 2 ° C or more which is huge when you are looking at .7 ° C over 120 years and claiming there is a crisis !– NetDr]
http://www.surfacestations.org/ — NetDr]
*************
Thanks for being so honest. You are right and I agree with you ! It is unacceptable and must be changed.
Cedric says:
“Why does one need to rely upon “peer-reviewed” literature to identify misleading graphics that have been clearly documented?
Cedric:
“If there really is hanky-panky going on and there is “clear documentation” to prove it…then write up a paper.
Enter the scientific arena. Should be a slam dunk.
Unless of course, there’s some dark conspiracy?””
Cedric. You are pretty much clueless on this issue. Read up on and then come back for a discussion.
Cedric says:
“Anyone, even smart educated people, can be fooled by professional fraudsters.”
Dare I say even “peer reviewers” can be fooled by professional fraudsters? The original article linking autism with vaccinations was published in Lancet. It was withdrawn 12 years later. http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/02/lancet_wakefield_autism_mmr_au.html
The people at GISS and CRU are not unbiased.
Then that would show up in the work. Science is not invested in people. It’s not about the personalities.
Only the research counts-only the work.
They collect the data [GISS & CRU especially ] they adjust the data or fail to adjust the data.
So you believe that the GISS & and the CRU are up to no good?
Ok.
How do you actually know this?
Who told you?
Either it shows up in the peer-reviewed literature or it doesn’t.
Even if it was absolutely true, how does this square with climatology research unconnected with GISS or CRU?
Or do you believe that there is one scientific community that is the nexus behind it all? One secret cabal calling the shots on all the climatologists and all the Earth scientists out there?
They have the same objective so if they collude it is barely necessary.
You don’t understand the problem you are creating for yourself. In order to reject the work done by “X” in the scientific community, you have to explain how they collude with each other. How do “they” match up their data with others in the field? Do they telephone each other? Is there an underground bunker that acts as a clearing house? How do they even know who to telephone? How do they know that someone else on the other side of the planet is not studying the same material they are?
What are the nuts and bolts of the global operation?
How do you make sure that a scientist in Finland (Communist-Bhuddist-very poor-hates Greenpeace) examining lake sediment layers will match up with coral reef samples taken by some other scientist in Micronesia( Fascist-Catholic-very rich-loves Greeenpeace to death)? Do they talk privately amongst themselves or are they unaware of each other and their work goes to a secret committee before publishing in any journal anywhere in the world?
Adjusting the temperature in the recorded history is enough for them…
Once again, how is this physically possible?
How can a scientist or even a secret cabal of scientists “put the fix in” on adjusting the temperatures in the recorded histories of anywhere?
How can it even concieveably be done?
Take a small target.
Never mind about manipulating recorded history of temperature data accoss the entire planet.
Take a much smaller easier target.
How is it possible to manipulate the recorded temperature data of say…Mexico? Not all the date, just say from 1945 to 1991? How could you do it?
(Let’s assume that all Mexican scientists are your secret love slaves or something and will do anything you ask and even when they retire or are fired will never, ever go to the press to reveal the conspiracy.)
Actually skeptics have been livid about it for some time.
Didn’t ask you about skeptics.
I asked you about all the other scientific communities.
(Like USGC, the AAAS, the NAS, the Royal Society, AGU, the American Chemical Society, the American Physical Society and all the others on the planet.)
Why are all the other science communities remaining silent on this amazing news…or are they in on it too?
The alarmists like it that way…
The “alarmists”? You mean NASA and the rest? Is NASA part of the global conspiracy? Is it running the conspiracy?
Here is a survey of all surface stations in the USA which shows 69% of them to be wrong…
And you know this how?
Why do you expect me to just trust you on this?
Even if it’s true-even if you threw out all the data gather by stations in the USA-what would that change? Climatology is a global issue. All you are doing is anomoly hunting.
@PaulD
Dare I say even “peer reviewers” can be fooled by professional fraudsters?
Yes, the people themselves can be fooled. The paper itself can be flawed. Yet the process of peer review is the process that caught out Wakefield. Scientists ripped his work apart years ago. It’s not like they ignored it for twelve years.
The antivaxers championed his work. They still do.
All of them felt (and still feel) that they can sort out fairly well what is written by crackpots and loons without relying upon the “peer reviewed” literature.
That’s how you end up with the “He said, She said” scenario. A perfect target rich environment for every fraud out there. Pick your own personal version of scientific reality. It’s all relative, man!
You say the Earth is 6000 years old, I say it’s 4.5 billion, but hey, facts and reality are over-rated. Just choose the one you privately feel is true.
People get suckered by quacks and frauds all the time.
None of the victims lack confidence in their own abilities to detect deciet though.
Penn and Teller did a nice job of showing how people who “don’t need no steenking peer-review” end up.
You follow the same path. You adopt the same methods.
Only the science topic is different.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/08/penn_teller_deconstruct_the_anti-vaccine.php
Previous comment (March 23, 2011, 10:56 pm) stuck in moderation. Only one link though. Hmm.
To continue…
If you are searching around for an excuse to ignore the peer-reviewed process then be honest about it.
If you need to ignore or discount the peer-reveiwed process by cooking up conspiracy theories then be honest about it.
You have no credible system for separating good science from bad.
However, I do.
It the same system that NASA uses.
It’s the same system that is used by all the branches of science.
Peer review is the standard and climate denialism fails that standard.
Just like creationism and anti-vaxxers and HIV deniers do.
There’s no difference. The methods, the rhetoric and even some of the people are exactly the same.
“Since the ideas proposed by deniers do not meet rigorous scientific standards, they cannot hope to compete against the mainstream theories. They cannot raise the level of their beliefs up to the standards of mainstream science; therefore they attempt to lower the status of the denied science down to the level of religious faith, characterizing scientific consensus as scientific dogma. As one HIV denier quoted in Maggiore’s book remarked,
“There is classical science, the way it’s supposed to work, and then there’s religion. I regained my sanity when I realized that AIDS science was a religious discourse. The one thing I will go to my grave not understanding is why everyone was so quick to accept everything the government said as truth. Especially the central myth: the cause of AIDS is known.”
Others suggest that the entire spectrum of modern medicine is a religion.
Deniers also paint themselves as skeptics working to break down a misguided and deeply rooted belief. They argue that when mainstream scientists speak out against the scientific “orthodoxy,” they are persecuted and dismissed. For example, HIV deniers make much of the demise of Peter Duesberg’s career, claiming that when he began speaking out against HIV as the cause of AIDS, he was “ignored and discredited” because of his dissidence. South African President Mbeki went even further, stating: “In an earlier period in human history, these [dissidents] would be heretics that would be burnt at the stake!”.
HIV deniers accuse scientists of quashing dissent regarding the cause of AIDS, and not allowing so-called “alternative” theories to be heard. However, this claim…”
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040256
Cedric
Take a small target.
Never mind about manipulating recorded history of temperature data accoss the entire planet.
Take a much smaller easier target.
How is it possible to manipulate the recorded temperature data of say…Mexico? Not all the date, just say from 1945 to 1991? How could you do it?
[Easy. Let’s take the world like GISS does. You take the data and let’s assume there is no trickery there. You don’t properly adjust for UHI. Since you are the final arbiter of what is “proper” who is to complain. You get some spurious warming there. You don’t adjust for poor siting or have poor metadata so there is more warming. It is quite easy to manipulate temperature data.
By their own admission NOAA added .5 ° F to the measured temperature.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif
Even after dozens of years the data is ADJUSTED so how hard can it be ?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/14/the-evolution-of-the-giss-temperature-product/
Claiming that it is difficult to ADJUST temperature data when that is exactly what GISS etc do every day is ridiculous. What is the proper amount and what direction is entirely left to the DISCRETION of people with an axe to grind.
I don’t know why the learned societies aren’t angry about this terrible conflict of interest. Perhaps they want the illusion of extra warming so their members can remain employed. Did you think of that ?
The whole temperature measurement scheme is based on TRUST, which has been lost by lies and distortions.
Climate science is the Rodney Dangerfield of the sciences just below Astrology.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif
(Let’s assume that all Mexican scientists are your secret love slaves or something and will do anything you ask and even when they retire or are fired will never, ever go to the press to reveal the conspiracy.)
There is no need for any of that. The adjusting is done in closed rooms with no supervision by skeptical people. No conspiracy needed !
****************************************
ha ha ha… and there is no crime because we have police.
There has never been a crooked cop and never will be. Only deniers and insane people would think otherwise.
Having blind faith in the perfection of peer review and believing everything that passes review becomes an established fact only prolongs bad theories.
A good scientist should be skeptical but since this is fading in their profession some of us need to be skeptical for them.
Cedric,
I’m not going to try respond to all of wrong-minded things you’ve said in your last 3 posts. There is simply too much of it to be dealt with. However, this comment below is fairly descriptive of pretty much every point you’re trying to make:
“Science is not about personalities. Science is not embodied in experts. It’s all about the work.”
If you’d ever tried to pass through a peer review process, you’d know how naive this statement sounds. Ideally, yes its only about “the work”. However, the work is reviewed by these so called “experts” in order to gain entry into scientific journals and to gain access to grant money. Thus, science is quite embodied in what those “experts” think of your work. And, as I’ve said before, we’re on occation going to encounter a few bad apples among the “experts” that are unable to put aside personal beliefs or motivations when in position of power over the acceptance of someone else’s work.
Even in my particular field, that probably 99.9999% of the worlds population does not care about, there are a few distinct personalities I know I’m going to have get through to publish. So, when writing a paper, as I am doing know, I have to throw their personal theories the proverbial bone. Just because they are so wedded to their particular point of view, and which topics are important to the field.
So, yes, science shouldn’t be about the experts or their personalities. Unfortunately, however, it on occation is. Even in relatively obscure fields. Now, when we start talking about a relatively small field, that is being used as justification to remake our entire economy, even society….yeah….no chance of dealing with personalities or expert OPINIONS there….
Please, try not to be so naive.
Cedric
Claiming that it would be difficult to fail to take and adjust temperature accurately defies logic. Having people with a stake in the outcome is a conflict of interest.
I agree with you when you said :
“Letting climate scientists with a stake in the results adjust temperatures is wacky Dr Mann and his hockey team…
This is terrible…if it’s true.”
You were correct, it is terrible and true.
Cedric:
You seem to be hung up on the importance of peer-review. Peer-review is a valuable process. It provides a degree of quality control on papers that are published in academic journals by specialists within a field. I think, however, that you overestimate its value.
In most areas of science, scientist publishes within their own narrow specialties and their disputes have little importance to others outside their fields. Since I don’t particularly care about most of these disputes I have little interest in studying them carefully. Accordingly, on most scientific topics, I’ll defer to the experts.
By contrast, climate science has huge policy ramifications for all of us. As a result I personally have taken a great interest in the topic. Many other who have relevant expertise, but who are not climate scientists, likewise have taken an interest in what climate scientists are saying.
For example, many economists are beginning to take an interest in the academic writings of climate scientists. Some of these economists have far greater expertise in the statistical analysis of time-series than do climate scientists and their expertise is highly relevant to many of the publication in the field of climate science. Similarly many engineers in the private sector and in academics have strong backgrounds in science, mathematics, statistics and the modeling of complex systems that enables them to comment insightfully on many assertions made by climate scientists.
These “outside” experts who are not professors have little to no incentive to publish in academic journals of climate science. Even those who are professors with relevant expertise are not likely to publish in journals outside their narrow specialties. That does not mean that they do not have valuable contributions to make.
In the past, one probably would not hear much from them. The internet, however, has opened up new opportunities for them to be heard. Some also might take the additional step of writing less formal articles for publications that are not peer-reviewed.
One can choose to simply ignore anything that is not written in peer-reviewed climate science journals. By doing so, I think one is ignoring the contributions that are being made by many highly qualified professionals who have important and relevant things to say.
Obviously, not everything written on the internet or the popular press is insightful or correct. So how does one separate the good from the bad? One method is to read extensively on both sides of various disputes and apply one’s own judgment to the arguments that are presented. That is what I choose to do. I think my own research and my training and experience in relevant fields outside of climate science allows to me to make reasonable judgments about many of the disputes within the field of climate science.
If you choose not to do the research and/or don’t feel you have sufficient background to understand the disputes, then you may not want to rely upon your own judgment. You may choose to defer to those you view as “experts” who have published in peer-reviewed journals. That is fine.
I do not agree, however, with your fundamental premise that there is nothing worth reading outside of the peer-reviewed literature and that everyone should accept the limitations that you are imposing on yourself. In my view, there are many seriously flawed articles that have been published in peer-reviewed journals of climate science. There are also many important and insightful articles that have not been published these peer-reviewed journals.
Cedric,
I share your vigorous confidence in the scientific process. Over the long term, errors and false theories are exposed and deleted and the process inexorably improves human understanding of natural phenomenon.
The key words being “over the long term”. I have no doubt that the shoddy practices and personally motivated missteps of certain scientists over the last thirty years will be corrected by the ongoing efforts of skeptical and intelligent scientists using the scientific method.
The “climatgate” emails show just how shoddy and petty some of the main players in the current climate science landscape have become to defend their vested interests and personal pet theories. I don’t think this is unique to climate science. I’m sure that in the past, and no doubt currently, there have been scientists that have put their thumb on the scale and twisted their data to suite their personal and political agendas.
But as I’m sure you agree eventually the evidence weeds these bad actors and their work from the main body of science. These clowns just made the mistake of putting their unscientific and fraudulent actions in writing and having those communications exposed to the public.
This disclosure is just accelerating the self-correcting process.
Also peer review is a fairly recent process. No one “peer reviewed” Einstein’s most famous and profound papers. Nor Galileo’s, Copernicus’ etc. through out the history of science.
These famous and brilliant achievements simply stood up to empirical verification. The theory that CO2 will cause catastrophes that threaten human civilization isn’t faring too well in that department so far. Ultimately time, and corroborating or contradictory evidence, will tell.
Your frantic special pleading on the behalf of these scientific malefactors, relying on the claimed unassailable protective powers of peer review, doesn’t sound much like an endorsement of the scientific process. It sounds much more like a lawyer hoping to get his criminal defendant off on a technicality.
Lance,
Oh, there are a lot of other examples of scientists behaving in unethical ways. Some much worse than what any climate scientists has done. Such as the Piltdown man hoax. All the “experts” loved that thing, so much so that real, contradicting evidence was black balled for decades. We’d do well to learn from such examples.
@Amused
Having blind faith…
Untrue.
Accepting the process of peer review has nothing to do with “faith”. Science is not religion. Religion is not science. They work differently. Just ask NASA.
…in the perfection of peer review…
Basic literacy fail. Nobody is claiming that peer review is perfect. Certainly not me. You are creating a strawman just so you can knock it down. That is a sign of weakness.
@Wally
Ideally, yes its only about “the work”. However, the work is reviewed by these so called “experts” in order to gain entry into scientific journals and to gain access to grant money.
Why do you expect me to just take your word for this?
You believe that “the fix is in” and that it’s all about access to grant money. I get it.
Yet I can’t just take your word for this. That’s what I would expect to hear from an anti-vaxxer, or an HIV denier or a creationist.
Same sentiment, same rhetoric, same empty hand waving.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA321_1.html
Now, when we start talking about a relatively small field…
Climatology requires and recieves data and supporting research from all the Earth sciences covering multiple, independent lines of research. All scientific communities fully support and back the field of climatology. The field of climatology is a global effort. Nothing “relatively small” about that at all. There is no conspiracy.
…that is being used as justification to remake our entire economy…
Science is the study of reality. Reality will not magically go away just because it’s somehow inconvenient to politics or economy or something.
You are using your fears and suspicions about policy to cloud your judgement about the science.
You can’t make good policy decisions just by flat out ignoring what NASA (for example) tells you.
And, as I’ve said before, we’re on occation going to encounter a few bad apples among the “experts” that are unable to put aside personal beliefs…
There will always be “bad apples” and there will always be those that allow their bias to corrupt their research.
That’s why we have the process of peer review.
It’s a quality control measure.
It’s the very opposite of being naive.
Peer-review demands the the work is published and the information be read by those who fully understand what they are reading. That’s just the first step.
Even if a single bad paper manages to sneak through then it can be examined and attacked at any time.
There is no mechanism that allows all (most) the scientists out there to be all “bad apples” or all mysteriously “biased”. A conspiracy of bad apples is physically impossible. There’s no way to organise it.
@PaulD
You seem to be hung up on the importance of peer-review.
Nope.
I just follow advice and work given by the scientific community.
This is not about me nor any personal “hang up” I may or may not have.
This is about how science is done in the modern era. All of it.
The standard is peer review.
I accept that standard. You are trying to sneak around it and damn it with faint praise.
Peer-review is a valuable process…
But?
By contrast, climate science has huge policy ramifications for all of us.
Either you accept that climate science really is science and that it has followed the rules just like every other scientific field out there…or you don’t.
Either you accept that science is the best way to study reality… or you don’t.
“Policy ramifications” is just an appeal to fear.
Creating policy built upon ignoring bad news from the science community is a recipe for disaster.
The same scientific standards that are applied to vaccines are the same ones applied to climate research.
Obviously, not everything written on the internet or the popular press is insightful or correct. So how does one separate the good from the bad? One method is to read extensively on both sides of various disputes and apply one’s own judgment to the arguments that are presented.
Then you have adopted the method used by HIV deniers.
They do indeed read “both sides”.
They pride themselves on it.
They do indeed “apply their own judgement”.
The quacks, in the meantime, jump with glee and their victims die while all the while praising the outside “experts”.
I don’t care about your personal conclusions. Neither should you.
It’s the methodology that is important.
(That’s not an insult so please don’t take it that way.)
If your adopted methodology produces (in another science topic) horribly bad results then you should not use that methodology.
You need a methodolgy that has built-in safeguards that will not lead you down the same path.
HIV deniers have their own tiny list of “Dissenters from the scientific “orthodoxy” ” just like climate deniers do.
HIV deniers can prop up a small handful of scientists with Phds on TV just like the climate deniers do.
HIV deniers will cherry pick individual studies out of the vast preponderance of peer-reviewed research to buck the consensus just like the climate deniers do.
In my view, there are many seriously flawed articles that have been published in peer-reviewed journals of climate science.
This is the rationale you use to step out from the scientific process.
It is the rationale that fuels all science deniers.
You are not taking any precautions against the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
You are doing something incredibly dangerous.
That HIV is the primary cause of AIDS is the strongly held consensus opinion of the scientific community, based upon over two decades of robust research. Deniers must therefore reject this consensus, either by denigrating the notion of scientific authority in general, or by arguing that the mainstream HIV community is intellectually compromised. It is therefore not surprising that much of the newer denial literature reflects a basic distrust of authority and of the institutions of science and medicine. In her book, Christine Maggiore thanks her father Robert, “who taught me to question authority and stand up for what’s right”. Similarly, mathematical modeler Dr. Rebecca Culshaw, another HIV denier, states: “As someone who has been raised by parents who taught me from a young age never to believe anything just because ‘everyone else accepts it to be true,’ I can no longer just sit by and do nothing, thereby contributing to this craziness”.
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040256
@Lance
I share your vigorous confidence in the scientific process.
No you don’t.
You contradict yourself at the first opportunity.
The “climatgate” emails show…
It’s funny how everybody around here understands that you can’t judge the science by reading emails but…but…but…but…
Either you accept the scientific process of peer review or you don’t. Make up your mind.
The theory that CO2 will cause catastrophes that threaten human civilization isn’t faring too well in that department so far.
No idea what you are talking about. You are coy with your details. I accept the conclusions drawn by all the scientific communities in the field of climatology.
I don’t cherry pick.
…these scientific malefactors…
Why do you ask me just to take your word for this?
Where is your evidence?
The meat of science is not embodied in people; no matter how dastardly or malicious or nasty or just plain ol’ mean they may be.
It’s about the work.
Mountains and mountains of work done over many decades that wins over the global scientific community.
There is no secret cabal of bad guys that can influence it all.
There is no conspiracy.
@Wally
Oh, there are a lot of other examples of scientists behaving in unethical ways.
You are not getting this.
Scientists are not taken on trust.
Science is not a secret club or a religion.
They must submit their work to their peers.
They must publish.
They must enter the scientific arena.
It’s not good enough for someone to write a “review”.
Or a book or keep a blog or go on TV.
Such as the Piltdown man hoax. All the “experts” loved that thing, so much so that real, contradicting evidence was black balled for decades.
All you are doing is looking around for an excuse to ignore the science.
Silly creationist talking point.
Very old.
Very silly.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC001.html