delegitamizing science

[rdean]

I know this for sure, anyone who believes in "mystical creation" over the science of evolution will never be taken seriously by the educated.

 

[eagleseven]

I know this for sure, anyone who believes in "mystical creation" over the science of evolution will never be taken seriously by the educated.

Wrong thread. Try again.

 

[Toronado3800]

rdean, I'm not familiar with the reference to this thread. Was someone who posted on here a "Creationist"?

 

[tigerbob]

rdean, I'm not familiar with the reference to this thread. Was someone who posted on here a "Creationist"?

Hell no. If something smells fishy, it'll be one of rdean's famous red herrings.

 

[FactFinder]

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.

The hacked emails were hacked from a single source but the individuals involved include the top scientists from the core center of AGW in the US and Britian. Jones, Mann, Hansen all created the trumped up models and distorted data that universities and research centers around the world depended on.

Yes, there has been a deligitimazation of science and the source is at the core of AGW.

 

[Si modo]

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.

The hacked emails were hacked from a single source but the individuals involved include the top scientists from the core center of AGW in the US and Britian. Jones, Mann, Hansen all created the trumped up models and distorted data that universities and research centers around the world depended on.

Yes, there has been a deligitimazation of science and the source is at the core of AGW.

No friend of the sciences would peddle that science as something that is settled. No friend of the sciences would use a consensus argument. These are enemies of the sciences.

 

[del]

I know this for sure, anyone who believes in "mystical creation" over the science of evolution will never be taken seriously by the educated.

at least you won't be lonely.

 

[AllieBaba]

Whenever ANY scientist puts political or monetary agendas, for example, above their scientific integrity when they do and report science, they are not good scientists.

I agree completely.

However, there is no evidence that most scientists do this.

Nor is there evidence that most scientists or climatalogists support the man-made global warming theory.

 

[Toro]

Whenever ANY scientist puts political or monetary agendas, for example, above their scientific integrity when they do and report science, they are not good scientists.

I agree completely.

However, there is no evidence that most scientists do this.

Nor is there evidence that most scientists or climatalogists support the man-made global warming theory.

Actually, there is.

A new poll among 3,146 earth scientists found that 90 percent believe global warming is real, while 82 percent agree that human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

The survey, conducted among researchers listed in the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments*, "found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role". The biggest doubters were petroleum geologists (47 percent) and meteorologists (64 percent). A recent poll suggests that 58 percent of Americans believe that human activity contributes to climate change.

"The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists' is very interesting," said Peter Doran, University of Illinois at Chicago associate professor of earth and environmental sciences who conducted the survey late last year with former graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman. "Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon."

Doran said wide support among climatologists does not come as a surprise.

"They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it."

97% of climatologists say global warming is occurring and caused by humans

 

[FactFinder]

Toro, I get the feeling you have invested in some carbon credits. Jumped on the Goldman Sachs bandwagon prematurely?

 

[Si modo]

I agree completely.

However, there is no evidence that most scientists do this.

Nor is there evidence that most scientists or climatalogists support the man-made global warming theory.

Actually, there is.

A new poll among 3,146 earth scientists found that 90 percent believe global warming is real, while 82 percent agree that human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

The survey, conducted among researchers listed in the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments*, "found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role". The biggest doubters were petroleum geologists (47 percent) and meteorologists (64 percent). A recent poll suggests that 58 percent of Americans believe that human activity contributes to climate change.

"The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists' is very interesting," said Peter Doran, University of Illinois at Chicago associate professor of earth and environmental sciences who conducted the survey late last year with former graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman. "Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon."

Doran said wide support among climatologists does not come as a surprise.

"They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it."

97% of climatologists say global warming is occurring and caused by humans

And, on what are they basing their opinion? It would be interesting to see that same poll now.

Fortunately, the predictive climatology has been exposed as a joke before the big-player climatologists were exposed. I wonder if your poll was before or after that event about a year and a half ago? Because if it was after, then there are more climate scientists who lack integrity than these big-players.

 

[code1211]

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.

Do you see anyone delegitimizing the Law of Gravity? When a woman protests long and loud that she is a lady, there is probably a good reason for people to doubt her assertion.

The mere fact that scientists have found themselves in a position in which they must define the difference between themselves and pro wrestling promoters is telling in and of itself.

What is the fodation of criticism of the scientific community?

If they had never adjusted data, which they have done, there might be no foundation.

If they had never made wildly innaccurate predictions, which they have done, there might be no foundation.

If they had not accepted large grants to preserve their employment, which they have done, there might be no foundation.

If they had not embraced openly biased spokespeople, which they have done, there might be no foundation.

If they had not made ridiculous videos designed to incite panic based on the slimest shred of conjecture, which they have done, there might be no foundation.

As it is, they have done all of these things and done so with the implicite and open blessings of their cronies. The delegitimizing of science has been exclusively the province of scientists and their the benefactors.

Again, harkening back to the lessons of my parents, when you lay down with dogs, you stand up with fleas.

 

[Toro]

Toro, I get the feeling you have invested in some carbon credits. Jumped on the Goldman Sachs bandwagon prematurely?

LOL, no.

 

[Toro]

And, on what are they basing their opinion? It would be interesting to see that same poll now.

Fortunately, the predictive climatology has been exposed as a joke before the big-player climatologists were exposed. I wonder if your poll was before or after that event about a year and a half ago? Because if it was after, then there are more climate scientists who lack integrity than these big-players.

The poll was conducted January 2009.

How are you able to discern which climatologists lack integrity and which don't? Are you using an empirical basis or are they the climatologists those who agree with what you believe? Did you believe that predictive climatology was a joke before this event? And if so, what is your specific body of knowledge that allows you to draw this conclusion?

 

[Si modo]

And, on what are they basing their opinion? It would be interesting to see that same poll now.

Fortunately, the predictive climatology has been exposed as a joke before the big-player climatologists were exposed. I wonder if your poll was before or after that event about a year and a half ago? Because if it was after, then there are more climate scientists who lack integrity than these big-players.

The poll was conducted January 2009. ....

Ah. Before the leak demonstrating the apparent lack of scientific integrity of those trusted with keeping the centralized base of climate data.

.... How are you able to discern which climatologists lack integrity and which don't? ....

Yes. Scientific integrity is a simple concept - the truth (in the sense of reality) takes precedence above all else. When data is manufactured, there is no scientific integrity. When the peer-review process is manipulated, there is no scientific integrity. When colleagues and publications are marginalized for asking valid scientific questions, there is no scientific integrity. When data is ignored for reasons other than scientific (statistical, irrelevant, etc.), there is no scientific integrity. Etc.

.... Are you using an empirical basis or are they the climatologists those who agree with what you believe? ....

The basis I use is an evaluation of the scientific integrity of the work. Opinions and ideology are irrelevant to me and to other scientists who value scientific integrity above all else.

.... Did you believe that predictive climatology was a joke before this event? ....

Absolutely and I based that on an analysis of the predictive models that demonstrates that they are unscientific.

.... And if so, what is your specific body of knowledge that allows you to draw this conclusion?

All that is required is an ability to apply critical thought. One does not need to be a scientist to do so, although most scientists have that ability, either naturally or after years of training and experience.

 

[Toro]

Ah. Before the leak demonstrating the apparent lack of scientific integrity of those trusted with keeping the centralized base of climate data.

So what you are saying is that the hacked database was the only repository of relevant climate data?

Yes. Scientific integrity is a simple concept - the truth (in the sense of reality) takes precedence above all else. When data is manufactured, there is no scientific integrity. When the peer-review process is manipulated, there is no scientific integrity. When colleagues and publications are marginalized for asking valid scientific questions, there is no scientific integrity. When data is ignored for reasons other than scientific (statistical, irrelevant, etc.), there is no scientific integrity. Etc.

It is not quite that simple. Simply because some of the data may be skewed does not mean that all of the subsequent study thereafter is not part of scientific enquiry.

I agree strongly that all studies should be subject to discourse, and contrary views should not be suppressed to satisfy agendas. However, that does not invalidate all the supporting evidence, which is what you are implying as you state there is no scientific integrity.

Absolutely and I based that on an analysis of the predictive models that demonstrates that they are unscientific.

For example?

Forecasting weather changes five years out is like forecasting who is going to win the Super Bowl in five years. Forecasting is inherently unstable in most professions. When someone says that the earth will be three degrees warmer 100 years from now, you should be highly skeptical. However, that does not necessarily invalidate the central thesis.

All that is required is an ability to apply critical thought. One does not need to be a scientist to do so, although most scientists have that ability, either naturally or after years of training and experience.

That is true. And skepticism is a good thing. However, a body of knowledge is usually advanced by experts arriving at empirical conclusions, not by a general consensus amongst a population because the population is generally unknowing in the area of expertise. That does not mean the experts are always correct. However, they are usually correct. The doctor is usually correct in his diagnosis. The mechanic usually understands what is wrong with your car. The accountant usually knows how much taxes you should pay. The experts are not always correct. Sometimes the experts are dead wrong. That is why dissenting voices should always be heard and never squelched. But the experts are usually correct, and the onus is on the dissenters to show why the experts are wrong.

Most people who dissent on climate change do so because of their political predisposition. In fairness, most people who agree with climate change also do so. That is why it is important to listen to what the experts tell us.

 

[Si modo]

Ah. Before the leak demonstrating the apparent lack of scientific integrity of those trusted with keeping the centralized base of climate data.

So what you are saying is that the hacked database was the only repository of relevant climate data? ....

Read what I wrote. Your poll was taken before the exposure of a scandal. I see little relevant to it at this point. I always have, too, as science is not voted upon to decide science. Finally, the CRU database was developed and pitched as a centralized location for climate data.

....

Yes. Scientific integrity is a simple concept - the truth (in the sense of reality) takes precedence above all else. When data is manufactured, there is no scientific integrity. When the peer-review process is manipulated, there is no scientific integrity. When colleagues and publications are marginalized for asking valid scientific questions, there is no scientific integrity. When data is ignored for reasons other than scientific (statistical, irrelevant, etc.), there is no scientific integrity. Etc.

It is not quite that simple. ....

Yes, it really is.

.... Simply because some of the data may be skewed does not mean that all of the subsequent study thereafter is not part of scientific enquiry. ....

That is a strawman thus it holds little interest to me.

.... I agree strongly that all studies should be subject to discourse, and contrary views should not be suppressed to satisfy agendas. However, that does not invalidate all the supporting evidence, which is what you are implying as you state there is no scientific integrity. ....

Your continued use of strawmen has me strongly suggesting that you read and comprehend what I write and take note of conditionals in sentence structure.

I will reiterate: When data is manufactured, there is no scientific integrity. When the peer-review process is manipulated, there is no scientific integrity. When colleagues and publications are marginalized for asking valid scientific questions, there is no scientific integrity. When data is ignored for reasons other than scientific (statistical, irrelevant, etc.), there is no scientific integrity. Etc.

....

Absolutely and I based that on an analysis of the predictive models that demonstrates that they are unscientific.

For example? ....

Climatologist Roger Pielke has publicized one such analysis (unfortunately the media did not pick up on it and that is not a surprise.)

.... Forecasting weather changes five years out is like forecasting who is going to win the Super Bowl in five years. Forecasting is inherently unstable in most professions. When someone says that the earth will be three degrees warmer 100 years from now, you should be highly skeptical. However, that does not necessarily invalidate the central thesis. ....

I never said that it did. What I DID say is that the predictive models are not scientific, yet they have been peddled as scientific by those with agendas other than science.

....

All that is required is an ability to apply critical thought. One does not need to be a scientist to do so, although most scientists have that ability, either naturally or after years of training and experience.

That is true. And skepticism is a good thing. However, a body of knowledge is usually advanced by experts arriving at empirical conclusions, not by a general consensus amongst a population because the population is generally unknowing in the area of expertise. ....

Then the point to your posting a poll was what, exactly?

.... That does not mean the experts are always correct. However, they are usually correct. The doctor is usually correct in his diagnosis. The mechanic usually understands what is wrong with your car. The accountant usually knows how much taxes you should pay. The experts are not always correct. Sometimes the experts are dead wrong. That is why dissenting voices should always be heard and never squelched. But the experts are usually correct, and the onus is on the dissenters to show why the experts are wrong.....

They are not always correct, but there is a good chance that they are correct in their field of expertize, if they have integrity, that is. The burden of falsifying models (the principle of scientific discovery, by the way) has been met over and over and over, even before the apparent manipulation of the science was exposed. Somehow that doesn't make it to the popular blogs and press, though.

.... Most people who dissent on climate change do so because of their political predisposition.

And most scientists who do, do so because of their devotion to science.

.... In fairness, most people who agree with climate change also do so. That is why it is important to listen to what the experts tell us.

What is important is for those who would make a conclusion about climate change would do so with a thorough analysis of the science, not what the press filters and feeds you.

 

[Si modo]

And to expand on my post to Toro, this scandal (apparent) is a very big deal and here is why: (1) The non-scientist public takes it on faith that the car they drive is safe, that the medication they take will likely work, that the paint they use will stay on their walls, etc. They take it on faith because they trust the integrity of scientists to study and test based on their knowledge. If the public now gets suspicious of other science, who could blame them? (2) Rarely does a scientist do science in a vacuum. S/he builds on the science done by others and is aware of and trusts that work based on a valued currency of exchange of knowledge - peer-review. Scientists, who value their integrity, do not abuse this currency of exchange leading to such a devaluation of it.

This is a big deal.

 

[tigerbob]

And to expand on my post to Toro, this scandal (apparent) is a very big deal and here is why: (1) The non-scientist public takes it on faith that the car they drive is safe, that the medication they take will likely work, that the paint they use will stay on their walls, etc. They take it on faith because they trust the integrity of scientists to study and test based on their knowledge. If the public now gets suspicious of other science, who could blame them? (2) Rarely does a scientist do science in a vacuum. S/he builds on the science done by others and is aware of and trusts that work based on a valued currency of exchange of knowledge - peer-review. Scientists, who value their integrity, do not abuse this currency of exchange leading to such a devaluation of it.

This is a big deal.

I'd argue that an unacceptable number of scientists have valued the goodwill of those who fund their research much more highly than the integrity of their research for years.

This, however, is arguably the first time that the issue has spilled so visibly into the public arena.

 

[Si modo]

And to expand on my post to Toro, this scandal (apparent) is a very big deal and here is why: (1) The non-scientist public takes it on faith that the car they drive is safe, that the medication they take will likely work, that the paint they use will stay on their walls, etc. They take it on faith because they trust the integrity of scientists to study and test based on their knowledge. If the public now gets suspicious of other science, who could blame them? (2) Rarely does a scientist do science in a vacuum. S/he builds on the science done by others and is aware of and trusts that work based on a valued currency of exchange of knowledge - peer-review. Scientists, who value their integrity, do not abuse this currency of exchange leading to such a devaluation of it.

This is a big deal.

I'd argue that an unacceptable number of scientists have valued the goodwill of those who fund their research much more highly than the integrity of their research for years.

This, however, is arguably the first time that the issue has spilled so visibly into the public arena.

Those who fund their research typically make decisions on that funding based on science AND peer-review (government grants, the most prestigious, are internally reviewed several times by scientists then they are reviewed externally through a peer-review several times, for example). This is the first time such manipulation of the peer-review process has been exposed to the public and the first time there are several in collusion to do so.