delegitamizing science

Discussion in 'Environment' started by Old Rocks, Dec 5, 2009.

  1. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,474
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,318
    Even at the height of the tobacco industries efforts to cast doubt on the scientific findings concerning tobacco, they did not try to denigrate the scientists involved in the research. Today, with trillions of dollars at stake, there is a concerted effort to cast all scientists as the enemy, as liars trying to pervert the system.

    While the hacked e-mails concern only a few scientists, the coverage is as if all scientists are involved in a vast conspiracy. Even though no one has yet to show where there is any wrongdoing by the scientists involved in the hacked e-mails.

    This assasination of character of a whole class of people is beginning to look like the McCarthy Era bullshit all over again.

    It is time for the scientific community to start punching back hard.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  2. Skull Pilot
    Offline

    Skull Pilot Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Messages:
    31,806
    Thanks Received:
    4,499
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +10,099
    AWWWW those poor scientists who fudged their data and committed character assassination on people who disagreed with them.

    [​IMG]
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,474
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,318
    The hockey stick divergence problem

    The hockey stick divergence problem
    Tree growth is sensitive to temperature. Consequently, tree-ring width and tree-ring density, both indicators of tree growth, serve as useful proxies for temperature. By measuring tree growth in ancient trees, scientists can reconstruct temperature records going back over 1000 years. Comparisons with direct temperature measurements back to 1880 show a high correlation with tree growth. However, in high latitude sites, the correlation breaks down after 1960. At this point, while temperatures rise, tree-ring width shows a falling trend (a decline, if you will). This divergence between temperature and tree growth is called, imaginatively, the divergence problem.

    The divergence problem has been discussed in the peer reviewed literature since the mid 1990s when it was noticed that Alaskan trees were showing a weakened temperature signal in recent decades (Jacoby 1995). This work was broadened in 1998 using a network of over 300 tree-ring records across high northern latitudes (Briffa 1998). From 1880 to 1960, there is a high correlation between the instrumental record and tree growth. Over this period, tree-rings are an accurate proxy for climate. However, the correlation drops sharply after 1960. At high latitudes, there has been a major, wide-scale change in tree-growth over the past few decades.
     
  4. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,474
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,318
    Purloined CRU e-mails on climate science: One scientist pleads for accuracy « Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub

    Purloined CRU e-mails on climate science: One scientist pleads for accuracy
    Here is what he said. Edward Cook, one of the world’s foremost authorities on ancient trees and how to learn from them (Dendrochronology), wrote to Michael Mann, both men scientists involved in making their science understandable and available to the public and the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Both men thought their communication would be private, probably forever. When no one is looking, this is what they say to one another:

    From: Edward Cook <drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
    To: &#8220;Michael E. Mann&#8221; <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
    Subject: Re: hockey stick
    Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 15:25:41 -0400
    Cc: tom crowley <tom@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, esper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

    Hi Mike,

    No problem. I am quite happy to work this stuff through in a careful way and am happy to discuss it all with you. I certainly don&#8217;t want the work to be viewed as an attack on previous work such as yours. Unfortunately, this global change stuff is so politicized by both sides of the issue that it is difficult to do the science in a dispassionate environment. I ran into the same problem in the acid rain/forest decline debate that raged in the 1980s. At one point, I was simultaneous accused of being a raving tree hugger and in the pocket of the coal industry. I have always said that I don&#8217;t care what answer is found as long as it is the truth or at least bloody close to it.

    Cheers,

    Ed

    This note appeared at the end of a rough-and-tumble debate over what data can be trusted, the motives of scientists involved, and how to make the best use of data collected, clear and unclear, in order to make an accurate portrayal of what is happening in our atmosphere.

    I&#8217;ll wager no critic of these scientists bothered to quote this one today, nor will they. In toto, the purloined e-mails show a devotion to science, and the requisite devotion to accuracy and ethical behaviors. But in a political debate where television weathermen feel compelled to demonize scientists to promote their political beliefs, who can afford to look at the big picture?

    My apologies to Dr. Cook for the purloining of the e-mail (though of course I had no role in the hacking); my appreciation to Dr. Cook for standing up for what&#8217;s right, damn the critics, when he th0ught no one was looking.
     
  5. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,474
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,318
    Quote mining code : Deltoid

    Raymond continues:

    It might get them off the hook if we knew -- for certain -- that it had never been shown to anyone who didn't know beforehand how the data was cooked and why. But since these peiple have conveniently lost or destroyed primary datasets and evaded FOIA requests, they don't deserve the benefit of that doubt. We already know there's a pattern of evasion and probable cause for criminal conspiracy charges from their own words.

    In fact, they did not destroy primary datasets, and they did not have permission to redistribute the data requested using the FOIA.

    Raymond has made no attempt to find out if the graph was actually used anywhere. The file name was osborn-tree6/briffa_sep98_d.pro, so we should look for a paper with authors, Briffa and Osborn published in 1998 and sure enough there's Briffa, Schweingruber, Jones, Osborn, Harris, Shiyatov, Vaganov and Grudd "Trees tell of past climates: but are they speaking less clearly today?" Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 1998:
     
  6. tigerbob
    Offline

    tigerbob Increasingly jaded.

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    6,225
    Thanks Received:
    971
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +972
    The interesting thing is that you see it from one side only, while refusing to recognize that there are 2 sides to every coin.

    No, the tobacco industry did not try to denigrate the scientists who were looking at the impacts of tobacco and publishing studies showing it to be dangerous. Why? Because the tobacco industry was always seen as the "bad guys" and needed to gain some degree of public sympathy, and character assassination is generally not a good way to do that.

    On the other hand, the anti tobacco lobby could and did denigrate the findings of scientists who published research showing that certain health concerns might be over stated. Why? Because the anti tobacco lobby were always painted as the "good guys", and it was seen to be perfectly acceptable to kick the tobacco companies and anyone who supported them.

    Any science that was funded by the tobacco companies was loudly ignored by the general scientific community, the press and policy makers. However, any science that was funded by the anti tobacco lobby or by companies like GSK (makers of absurdly expensive and vastly profitable Niquitin) was instantly picked up by the media and believed by everyone else.

    So, why believe one group of scientists whose funding comes from a source with an agenda and not another group of scientists whose funding comes from a source with an agenda? Easy.

    1. It is politically correct to kick the tobacco lobby. It is not politically correct to kick the anti tobacco lobby. So long as you show support for the group that is "saving us from ourselves" you can get away with pretty much anything.
    2. One can take a strong anti tobacco stance with little understanding of the science (and tobacco science is hugely complex). Taking a pro tobacco stance means that you are going to face a barrage of criticism, so your better understand the science pretty damn well.
    3. Once a critical tipping point has been reached, with public opinion predisposed to believe one view or another, we are left with the dangerous scenario that all one side has to do in order to be believed is shout their findings as loudly as possible, while muzzling those whose findings are different. In this scenario, the press (whose job was once to find stories, interrogate the proponents and present the facts in a clear and unbiased manner), are now so toothless and lazy that they will happily take a press release from the politically correct side and apply only a veneer of due diligence before publishing much of it word for word, while almost completely ignoring the rebuttals from the politically incorrect side of the argument.

    Now, take that entire scenario and apply it to the climate debate. What's the difference?

    Nothing.

    And for you, Old Rocks, to say that the scientific community needs to start punching hard is fucking bullshit. The scientific community has been punching hard for years. The only change is that, all of a sudden, they are having to do it in self defense rather than in attack. If they don't like being called liars and manipulators then perhaps they would do well to remember that what goes around comes around.

    The scientific community does not need to start punching. There has been quite sufficient of that already. The scientific community needs to start talking openly, with no agenda. It needs to build consensus, not just kill the opposition. McCarthyism refers to ANY witch-hunt, Rocks, not just to one viewpoint or another.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 8
  7. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,248
    Thanks Received:
    14,915
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +37,035
    The difference is that the Warmers are not Scientists, they are pushing a political agenda.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. Si modo
    Offline

    Si modo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2009
    Messages:
    41,538
    Thanks Received:
    6,382
    Trophy Points:
    1,810
    Location:
    St. Eligius
    Ratings:
    +8,703
    What the FUUUUUUUCK?

    The scientific community IS fighting back hard and giving those who have dealt such an insult to scientific integrity the scorn and scoff they deserve.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 3
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2009
  9. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,248
    Thanks Received:
    14,915
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +37,035
    The Warmers gave real scientists a Black Eye
     
  10. Liability
    Offline

    Liability Locked Account. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    35,447
    Thanks Received:
    5,049
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Mansion in Ravi's Head
    Ratings:
    +5,063
    Indeed. So much so that when the FRAUD that has been ON-GOING for so long gets exposed, the defenders of the WARMER Faith react how? By trying to steer the discussion toward the alleged "hacking."

    Guys like Moldy Fossil need to get it through their thoroughly propagandized heads that we aren't falling for ANY of that shit ever again.

    First, it is probably NOT even a case of "hacking."

    Secondly, the VALID discussion about the FRAUDULENT EFFORTS of alleged "scientists" which undermined "good science" has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH HOW the information got revealed.

    Thirdly, the information that DID GET REVEALED is the ONLY POINT worth discussing!

    Fourth, the information that GOT REVEALED should be the thing that OUTRAGES (literally) ALL actual, honest, legitimate, good SCIENTISTS. Suppression of scientific data, and the distribution of FALSIFIED DATA makes "good science" almost impossible. It tarnishes the efforts of ALL scientists.

    Moldy Fossile should be objective enough to now, himself, DEMAND that ALL the actual data, including the shit that so far even NASA refuses to share, get completely released.

    The ONLY folks opposed to the release of HONEST SCIENTIFIC DATA, IN FULL, are folks with a partisan agenda, afraid of what the TRUTH might reveal. Very un-scientific of them.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2

Share This Page