posted
I'm unsure if this has already been discussed but Rush Limbaugh is currently crowing about it alot. Here's a link from the NYtimes.
I don't think it's a "mushroom cloud" that blows apart the entire idea of man influenced climate change. But I think I'm in love with Gavin A. Schmidt for two quotes,
"Science doesn’t work because we’re all nice,"
and,
"Newton may have been an ass, but the theory of gravity still works."
What does concern me is the feeling from the emails that scientists are blocking access to the data for fear that hostile readers will try to invalidate all of the science by pointing out innocuous mistakes. Is that a wise course of action in this regard?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you think OSC's next world watch essay will be about this, or will he work it into his reviews?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
10 years of emails. Hundreds of thousands of individual communications.
There's going to be *something* bad in there, especially when applying the "I know they are evil, so in what way does this prove it?" filter.
Some of what I've seen was obviously hyperbole and humor, some of it is a matter of the anti-AGW people not understanding exactly what's being talked about, and, yes, some of it looks a little fishy.*
None of what has been revealed materially affects the state of AGW science. There's no evidence of a massive conspiracy.
I wish it was much ado about nothing, and in some sense it is, but any time you get that much personal communication, there's going to be something that can be interpreted as dirt and there will probably me something actually dirty as well.
*EDIT I haven't seen anything for which there is no plausible explanation which is less inflammatory than the "worst case" interpretations which are being applied.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
This pisses me off. It a deliberate distraction from a critical issue. Nothing in this makes one iota of difference in the big picture of climate change science and anyone who is familiar with the field knows that. This is just another example of how the AGW conspires to distract the public from the real issues. They don't seem to get it. We are racing toward the precipice of a cliff and they are trying to persuade us we shouldn't use the breaks.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I must say that if people are really abusing the peer-review process and distorting graphs, then the rest of the people in their field ought, at a minimum, to take a few moments of self-reflection. The correct response is to go through the old papers and see whether there's any reliance on the now-suspect data. It's not as though this is some obscure institute at the fringes of the field, either.
And really, refusing to share data is not very nice.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Knowing very little about climatology, would sulfur in the stratosphere cause acid rain - or is it only in lower levels of the atmosphere? Was there a worldwide increase of acid rain after Pinatubo?
I really am curious - just don't have the background in the science.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"another, a scientist refers to climate skeptics as 'idiots.'"
Far worse than anything they've been called of course.
"Some skeptics asserted Friday that the correspondence revealed an effort to withhold scientific information. “This is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud,” said Patrick J. Michaels, a climatologist who has long faulted evidence pointing to human-driven warming and is criticized in the documents."
Mushroom cloud of what? I didn't see anything that would change the data, the conclusions, or anything else. That people e-mail things that wouldn't go over well in a public sphere? This is the problem I see is that there's a lot of pointing to attitudes and conflicts, but almost no discussion, in the public sphere, of actual data or conclusions. Anyways, calling this a mushroom cloud seems to miss the mark by a bit.
"Some of the correspondence portrays the scientists as feeling under siege by the skeptics’ camp and worried that any stray comment or data glitch could be turned against them.
The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument. However, the documents will undoubtedly raise questions about the quality of research on some specific questions and the actions of some scientists."
Absolutely valid, and here I agree with KoM. When it seems the whole world is against you (and the whole world doesn't have to be for it to seem that way) people fight back. Those studying this problem are in the tight situation of both advocating one outcome and remaining unbiased in analysis. Not an easy corner to fight from, but an almost inescapable one. For good or ill (and I think most would agree it's the latter) political battle lines have been drawn and those who would most benefited and benefit others by staying neutral have been thrust into the ring. I wouldn't at all object to very strict guidelines and oversight on this peer-review process. In the same breath, I'm not ready to throw out all that's been accomplished on such a vital issue. I may not be as intensely worried as everyone in this thread, but I am worried, and if 'no I'm not but you are' didn't work in grade school I don't think it will solve an impending global crisis. Even if it does make some people feel better while it happens.
quote:bsolutely valid, and here I agree with KoM. When it seems the whole world is against you (and the whole world doesn't have to be for it to seem that way) people fight back. Those studying this problem are in the tight situation of both advocating one outcome and remaining unbiased in analysis.
I think the problem goes a little bit deeper. Most of the people I know, who have been studying this issue for years, are developing a sense of desperation. Over the past twenty years, the science supporting climate change has gone from "compelling" to "terrifying". Back in the 80s, most scientist in the area thought the theory was sound and that we would likely start seeing some serious effects in about a century. The evidence was strong enough then to indicate that we should proceed with caution and begin to shift away from a fossil fuels economy. Over the last twenty years, that picture has changed rather dramatically. Things (like the melting of the artic ice) are happening much much faster than was originally believed would happen. The picture really is very grim, much grimmer than most people want to admit. The IPCC report, far from being biased and over blown, is actually quite conservative in its predictions.
No matter how you slice it, there isn't any rational reason for people to claim human activity is changing the climate and to argue that dramatic action must be taken to stop it, except that they sincerely believe its true. As much as the opposition likes to imagine some hidden agenda, no one has yet come up with any reasonable idea of what that agenda might be.
So in addition to the normal scientific rivalries, that can at times get very nasty, we have a sense of urgency, a sense that action must be taken now to stop global disaster. We can't simply wait for time to settle the debate as usually happens in science.
And so scientists who feel a sense of urgency on this issue really are in a very very difficult position. How do you communicate the sense of urgency you get from understanding a vast body of scientific studies, to a public that doesn't deal well with complexity? How do deal with people who seem to be deliberately trying to obscure the central issues? How do you respond to people (like Michaels) who are actually being paid by the fossil fuels lobby to refute your claims?
[ December 01, 2009, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ... there isn't any rational reason for people to claim human activity is changing the climate and to argue that dramatic action must be taken to stop it, except that they sincerely believe its true ...
Damnit. I knew there was a catch to this whole environmentalism thing.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ... there isn't any rational reason for people to claim human activity is changing the climate and to argue that dramatic action must be taken to stop it, except that they sincerely believe its true ...
Damnit. I knew there was a catch to this whole environmentalism thing.
The best way to understand how wight wing wackos think is to look at the things they accuse their opponents of doing. "Hidden Agendas", "Conspiracies", "Hating Freedom", "Media Bias" . . . how do you think they come up with these things?
[ December 01, 2009, 11:38 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I kind of like Mark Twain: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
People can always find a poll to suit their liking. I would feel much better if they hadn't conveniently lost their source data. What is left is statistics.
If I say show me your source data, does that make me equivalent to a "birther". I am right wing afterall. Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I kind of like Mark Twain: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
People can always find a poll to suit their liking. I would feel much better if they hadn't conveniently lost their source data. What is left is statistics.
If I say show me your source data, does that make me equivalent to a "birther". I am right wing afterall.
mal, I have provide source data for my arguments repeatedly over the years. CT created this thread as a clearing house for all the sources data I had provided at the time. If you go to the OP, you will find links to dozens of posts where I provide source data. Until you've actually read that data, I don't have anything else to say to you in this debate.
Educate yourself or be quiet.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, though, I think the field would benefit, both from a scientific and a public-policy perspective, from taking some time to go through the back archives, weed out the stuff that's not that strong (or perhaps even suspect), and be left with a smaller collection of stronger papers. In particular, any plots where declines have been hidden should be weeded out. It is never good policy not to show all the data you have.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Yes you provided data in this thread, enough to answer anyone's doubts.
Mal's points are, if their data has vanished would he sound fanatical.
No he wouldn't.
The fact is that this data, that was thrown out before the need for it was realized, is not the only base data in existence. Agencies from NASA to other science communities around the world have all kept data that corresponds to their findings.
Hence while this is a non-issue on the truthfulness of climate change, it is an issue on the truthfulness of those opposing science, for as they spin this they show themselves to be either honest in wanting all the facts, or dishonest in cherry picking that which they can manipulate...
which is exactly what the claim the scientists are doing.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Again, though, I think the field would benefit, both from a scientific and a public-policy perspective, from taking some time to go through the back archives, weed out the stuff that's not that strong (or perhaps even suspect), and be left with a smaller collection of stronger papers. In particular, any plots where declines have been hidden should be weeded out. It is never good policy not to show all the data you have.
No more than any other scientific field. In fact this is what has been done rather extensively by the IPCC.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
But the IPCC report is precisely what is now suspect! And climatology would benefit more than other fields, because you now know that some of your papers are dodgy. Now I'm not saying that every HEP paper ever published is perfect, but in the case of climatology we have specific evidence that particular parts are not good; that evidence ought to shift your opinion of how much revision is needed, relative to other fields where there is no such evidence.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: It is never good policy not to show all the data you have.
First off, no one in science ever shows all the data they have.
Second, What do you think would be the proper response in a situation like this where a) the opposition has an established conflict of interest and a proven history of dishonest if not fraudulent presentation of data and b) there is urgent reason to act on your scientific claims?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: But the IPCC report is precisely what is now suspect!
If the IPCC report is suspect, any other attempt to objectively review the research would be as well. The IPCC report is not flawed, if it has a bias, it is toward minimizing the dangers not exagerating them.
quote:And climatology would benefit more than other fields, because you now know that some of your papers are dodgy.
There are dodgy papers in every field, they just don't make FOX new. Please give some specific examples of dodgy papers that any one is using to make policy changes. I know of several but they are all from the AGW (anti greenhouse warming) side.
quote:Now I'm not saying that every HEP paper ever published is perfect, but in the case of climatology we have specific evidence that particular parts are not good; that evidence ought to shift your opinion of how much revision is needed, relative to other fields where there is no such evidence.
I really don't know what specific evidence you are referring to. Their are a number of cases which have been blown out of proportion by the media. Please give me some specific examples so I can defend my field.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, nobody shows the raw data in a paper, obviously; but you should maintain a backup so you can give it to anyone who wants to duplicate your results. Further, when you do show a plot, it must be honest. You cannot hide a decline. That is the most damaging phrase in the whole thing, to me; 'tricks' is just jargon, "redefine peer review" is mere hyperbole, and calling people idiots is hardly unusual. But when someone says they have done something to "hide the decline", and you know that their theory is precisely that there is an increase, then I get really upset.
And the proper response is, exactly and precisely, not to act in any way that could even remotely be presented as improper, much less ways that actually are improper. It really does seem to me that the CRU researchers did some dodgy stuff, here. And when the political implications of the science are large and urgent, it is all the more important not only to be pure, but to appear so. It is now too late for that, but second best is to visibly scramble to throw out anything remotely dodgy. This is science, and we have real forms of damage control; we don't need to do what a political party means by that phrase, and in fact it is likely counter-productive. Throw the bums out, and their dodgy graphs with them; then say, simply and honestly, "We still believe this paper, and this one, and this one, and here's the data and here's our model; anyone want to contradict the result?" Honesty may take a bit longer, but the end result is all the more sure.
You say that the matter is urgent, and I agree; all the more reason, then, not to play political tricks. Two can play at that game, and two will; only one side can have the genuine truth backing it. It's worth taking some extra time - yes, even with the urgency of the situation - to be absolutely 100% certain not only that you are telling the truth, but that all your steps are sound and there's nothing a political opponent can insert a wedge into. Failing to do so has led, inexorably, to "ClimateGate".
A scientist should not play at politics, any more than he should argue with idiots; the idiot, or politician, will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:A scientist should not play at politics, any more than he should argue with idiots; the idiot, or politician, will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
What exactly should a scientist do when their data provides compelling evidence of impending disaster and need for political action?
That is the question at hand. How does a scientist balance being a scientist and being a human being? If a scientists knows something that has critical political implications, what should the scientist do?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Further, when you do show a plot, it must be honest. You cannot hide a decline. That is the most damaging phrase in the whole thing, to me; 'tricks' is just jargon, "redefine peer review" is mere hyperbole, and calling people idiots is hardly unusual. But when someone says they have done something to "hide the decline", and you know that their theory is precisely that there is an increase, then I get really upset.
I'd have to know the specifics to be able to make that judgement. If the conclusion is that there is a long term increasing trend and the decision is to use an averaging scheme that makes a short term recent decline less evident -- is that dishonest? No it isn't unless the averaging scheme isn't clearly described and claims are made about the short term trends.
It is really easy to take a sentence like that out of context and make it seem like it is something it is not. It is routine for scientist to choose the scaling on a plot that emphasizes the trend they see as important in the data. It is routine for scientist to choose statistical processing that emphasizes the results they see as most important. That isn't unethical, its good communication.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is now too late for that, but second best is to visibly scramble to throw out anything remotely dodgy. This is science, and we have real forms of damage control; we don't need to do what a political party means by that phrase, and in fact it is likely counter-productive.
If we are going to do that, you need to recognize that the "bums" at CRU aren't anywhere near the top of the list for "dodgy" research. The guys the call idiots (McKitrick and Michaels) have published some really stinkers. The published a paper in "Climate Research" in which they made a high school level error of using degrees in a function that required radians. When that error was corrected, it completely reversed their conclusions. There really are only two possible explanations for such a simple mistake -- gross incompetence or deliberate fraud. And this isn't the first or last time these two have been presented stuff that is far worse than "dodgy".
And yet these guys are still being quoted as experts in Climatology. Michaels is the very person who calls the statements from the CRU "a mushroom cloud". By comparison to the stuff he's pulled, the CRU revelations aren't even a BB gun.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it is a genuine pity that climate change science has become so politicized, but when you are dealing with science that has such direct implications for public policy it is hardly surprising.
It is however important to recognize that it is not just to lay the blame for the politicization of the science on proponents of climate change. The AGW is far more politically active, outspoken and biased than the opposition. Michaels is employed by a political think tank and paid by oil and gas interests. He can't even make a pretense at objectivity and yet has the gall to complain about bias of among a very small number of his opponents. This is worse than a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Uh-oh. I've always understood AGW to represent "anthropogenic global warming" which is essentially the opposite.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
It is however important to recognize that it is not just to lay the blame for the politicization of the science on proponents of climate change. The AGW is far more politically active, outspoken and biased than the opposition. Michaels is employed by a political think tank and paid by oil and gas interests. He can't even make a pretense at objectivity and yet has the gall to complain about bias of among a very small number of his opponents. This is worse than a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Indeed; more's the pity that it wasn't Michaels' email that was hacked.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is really easy to take a sentence like that out of context and make it seem like it is something it is not. It is routine for scientist to choose the scaling on a plot that emphasizes the trend they see as important in the data. It is routine for scientist to choose statistical processing that emphasizes the results they see as most important. That isn't unethical, its good communication.
I agree with all these points, and having read up a bit more on the context of the "hide the decline", it doesn't look as bad as it did at first. I still think it should not have been done that way.
quote:The guys the call idiots (McKitrick and Michaels) have published some really stinkers. The published a paper in "Climate Research" in which they made a high school level error of using degrees in a function that required radians.
:wince: Ok, fine, but "tu quoque" is still a logical fallacy. Further, you can't do house-cleaning on the other side. You can only take responsibility for your own. And, incidentally, if that level of mistake is passing peer review, what does that say for the quality of your side's papers?
quote:What exactly should a scientist do when their data provides compelling evidence of impending disaster and need for political action?
Publish the data. Then talk to your Congressman. Then, at all costs, avoid even the faintest hint of scandal, data-cooking, or suppression of opposing views!
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Indeed; more's the pity that it wasn't Michaels' email that was hacked.
This is the point KoM seems to be missing. The people opposing climate change aren't playing by the normal scientific rules. They are committing outright fraud at every turn and doing things that are blatantly illegal like hacking the CRU e-mails. And they have the entire right wing media force to publicize their every move.
How should an ethical scientist respond to that? Certainly fudging data and hiding data aren't the answer but what is? In science, the usual answer is to wait. Over time, evidence will mount on one side or the other until no honest scientist can refute the preponderance of evidence. But this isn't a usual scientific topic. Because the scientific claims require immediate political action on a global scale, we can't just keep waiting. Furthermore, because the science has such such important political and social implications, the debate isn't being limited to people who understand the science. Over the past 30 years, evidence has in fact been mounting on one side of this issue and one side only. But as that has happened, the opposition has taken their flimsy data that can't pass peer review to the media who are happy to publish any sensational story.
How often does the main stream media pick up stories about dodgy or event fraudulent science among those who are opposing climate change? I haven't seen one mainstream media report yet and yet their are myriads of well documented examples.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Publish the data. Then talk to your Congressman. Then, at all costs, avoid even the faintest hint of scandal, data-cooking, or suppression of opposing views!
Unfortunately, ethical scientists have been doing that for 30 years and failed. At some point, you have to consider alternatives unless you really don't care about the destruction of the ecosystem and deaths of millions of people.
I'm not justifying anyone cooking the data or suppressing opposing views, not on either side. But since that happens in every scientific field its not surprising that it has happened in Climatology.
What I am justifying, is scientists becoming more actively involved politically and learning to play by the rules of politics rather than the rules of science. Because at some point, none of us are just scientists, we are human beings with political and social interests. Scientific ethics don't over ride all other ethical considerations.
What you don't seem to recognize KoM, is the difference between presenting science for other scientists who are trained to understand the complexity of the issues and presenting science to a general public that makes political decisions.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, Let me pose a hypothetical situation. You are a biologist and in your research you come across some evidence which apparently contradicts the theory of evolution. You are confident that eventual that evidence will be reconciled with evolutionary theory and that figuring out how it works would be scientifically interesting. If you publish the data, you know that a number of scientists will start working on the problem and that through that they may make some interesting and valuable scientific discoveries. But you also know that if you publish this evidence now before you have found a way to reconcile it with evolutionary theory that the creationists will pounce on it and blow it way out of proportion. It will serve as fuel to the whole anti-evolution movement.
Do you publish now or not? If you chose not to publish that data, would you consider it a a breach of professional ethics.
I should also add that this isn't a totally contrived situation. The scenario has come up many times in the biological sciences and that over history a lot of biology has been suppressed precisely for this reason. As we gain a better understanding of evolutionary process, we can explain many of those "anomalies" that had been originally hidden by scientists. There are cases I could point you to where the over all advancement of biological scientists would very likely have been dramatically slowed if scientists have published findings before finding a good explanation for them.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Changing the subject slightly, I just read this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/30/canada-tar-sands-copenhagen-climate-deal) about Canada's not-very-helpful approach to climate change. Is there a Canadian narrative that puts things in a better light?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Publish and be damned. You can't help what the creationists do, you can only help what you do.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
natural_mystic: Nope. There are no real excuses. We should be doing more.
The explanation for what is going on is that the current Conservative government has a large base in Alberta and due to vote-splitting among the left-wing parties that is very difficult to replace even though a decent majority of the population is in favour of doing more.
Edit to add: Here we, go, here's some coverage from a conservative news outlet. link
The gist: "Yeah, we suck. But we don't suck worse than the States. And hey, what about all those developing countries?" Pretty crummy.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Publish and be damned. You can't help what the creationists do, you can only help what you do.
You can only help what you do, but you can't ignore the likely impact of what you do. Why do you think it you should publish data before you can adequately explain it whey you know that the most likely result will be to slow the progress of science? Why is there an ethical obligation to publish something you can't explain?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
natural mystic, Unfortunately, not. Canada (Alberta in particular) has a very significant economic interest in continuing to burn fossil fuels. Curbing greenhouse emissions would hurt their bottom line (at least for the next couple of decades).
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW KoM, I asked for some specific examples of dodgy science. Please provide these. It is important for me to know what you are talking about and whether you are simply repeating lies told by others or have legitimate examples of dodgy science that is being used to push policy.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Truth is truth. Either you're a scientist, or you're a political hack with an ax to grind. If the evidence favours the position of ignorant cretins, that is a problem of having cretins in the first place, not a problem of the evidence.
As for slowing the progress of science, in the scenario you outline nobody is going to die of that, or at least it will be very indirect - third-order effects at most. I must say that the case of climate science is a rather better argument for fraud, in that it has actual lives at stake as a first-order effect. But consider the following aphorism: "If you would break your word to save the world, then the moment when the world needs saving is the moment that your word becomes worthless." In particular, it is worthless for the cause of saving the world, because "he would say that, wouldn't he?" If what you publish becomes a function of what you believe rather than what you can show from evidence, then you lose the effect of being a scientist. If a scientist weighs in on a political problem, saying "Action X will cause effect Y", that should be a very strong argument for those who care about effect Y. But this is only true if the scientist can be trusted not to shade his report. I'm even willing to sacrifice some lives to maintain that reputation for absolute truth-telling. After all, who knows when the next crisis might come along, where it will be of even greater importance that the public should believe the science? Machiavelli reminds us that "the prince should not lie, unless it is very greatly to his advantage", on the grounds that a reputation for truth-telling is an extremely valuable asset. And the prince only has to care about his own lifetime. A scientist must look ahead to the next half millennium.
I realise of course that I'm holding up an inhuman standard; I would not necessarily burn anyone at the stake for breaking it. Keelhauling should be sufficient.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: BTW KoM, I asked for some specific examples of dodgy science. Please provide these. It is important for me to know what you are talking about and whether you are simply repeating lies told by others or have legitimate examples of dodgy science that is being used to push policy.
I was referring to the "hide the decline" comment; pressure brought to bear on journal editors; some examples of 'correction factors' in code which look rather bad; and refusal to publish models. I should have been more specific in my wording: I do not necessarily say that any of these are dodgy science, there could be good explanations for each one (and of course they are all cherry-picked from a huge archive), but they do not give a good impression. Again, it is necessary not only to be pure, but to appear so.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Publish and be damned. You can't help what the creationists do, you can only help what you do.
You can only help what you do, but you can't ignore the likely impact of what you do. Why do you think it you should publish data before you can adequately explain it whey you know that the most likely result will be to slow the progress of science? Why is there an ethical obligation to publish something you can't explain?
To answer this more directly, the fastest way to get something explained is to have more people look at it. If something is really puzzling, then you should get more brains working on the problem.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd honestly prefer for scientists to publish their results without feeling they have a responsibility to act as shepherds of public response to what gets published. To do otherwise is hubris and ultimately counterproductive.
"Why is there an ethical obligation to publish something you can't explain?"
I know little of the process of deciding what is worthy of publication, but I think there are different ways you can have a result that seems difficult to explain. Some things might simply not merit publication without further study.
But suppressing a result that you'd have published if it turned out a different way, because you're afraid it'll sway public opinion the wrong way seems unethical because objectivity is tossed out the window.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm accumulating a lot of posts in a row here, but oh well. Touching the creationism thing, how about those dinosaur bones with the soupy fluid inside? Scweitzer and Staedter must have known the creationists were going to jump all over that, but they went ahead and published anyway. Do you call them wrong for doing so? I don't. And I'm glad to have a specific example I can say I approve of, because after all words are cheap. "Pff", he said, waving his hand airily. "Publish and be damned; truth is truth". Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think any of the revelations that have come out of the letters have undermined anthropogenic global warming.
But things like that they can't reconstruct the process they used to go from original data sources to their database is an example of extremely bad science. Also, the letters reveal certain illegal and immoral practices, like conspiring to delete emails in response to a freedom of information request.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I was referring to the "hide the decline" comment; pressure brought to bear on journal editors; some examples of 'correction factors' in code which look rather bad; and refusal to publish models
Like I keep saying, these snipets are not sufficient to make a judgement on what was actually done. I need more data. What exactly did they do to "hide the decline"? I can think of many ways of presenting data that are intended to emphasize a particular feature and deemphasize other features. Most of those are completely ethical. In order to judge whether or not something unethical was done I need more details. Otherwise, you are making unfair judgments based on heavily biased media reports of data released by criminals with clearly biased objectives.
For example, one of the publicized comments that has been interpreted as pressuring journal editors has been presented without any context. The specific journal in question, "Climate Research". One of the Journal editors, Chris de Freitas, has been a very outspoken sceptic of global climate change and critic of the IPCC. The journal published several articles skeptical of climate change that were proven in short order to be total garbage. The articles contained clear errors, some of them in high school level material, that should have been caught in the peer review process. Chris de Freitas was responsible for the review of all of these articles. This wasn't a case of suppression legitimate science, it was exactly the opposite. A case of an editor allow publication of critically flawed material because it support his bias. When this became widely known, there was backlash against the journal by legitimate scientists of all political stripes. Most of the journal's editorial board resigned in protest. The snipets I've read obtained by these hackers, are about this incident. Knowing the full story shed a very different light on the comments.
And btw, one of the thoroughly discredit papers in question, was co-authored by Michaels -- who is now whining about "suppression". That isn't what happened. Michaels succeeded in publishing a paper with obvious amateurish mistakes that should have led to immediate rejection in a legitimate peer review. The paper was non the less accepted for ideological reasons despite the fact that it was a piece of crap.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Peter Watts has a blog post on this subject that I enjoyed reading. NSFW language, so if that bothers you, don't click.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Part of the ethical obligation is that in most cases research is funded by tax dollars paid by evolutionists and creationists. It's literally the job of the researcher to share with their sponsor (the public) what they learn.
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: Part of the ethical obligation is that in most cases research is funded by tax dollars paid by evolutionists and creationists. It's literally the job of the researcher to share with their sponsor (the public) what they learn.
Hobbes
I think people are misunderstanding what I'm saying. I not trying to justify deliberate misrepresentation of results or violation of contractual obligations. But no scientist publishes every single piece of data they collect. That wouldn't be science. Every time scientists report on their findings, they go through a selection process of what data to include in the report and what to omit, they explore a range of ways to present the data to communicate the things they have found important. There are unethical ways of doing that, but doing it is not inherently unethical -- it is an important part of the scientific process.
Let me give an example, consider this famous set of data from Charles Keeling showing atmospheric CO2 levels over the past 50 years at the Mauna Loa observatory. The data shows a long term increasing trend superimposed on an annual oscillatory cycle. We have a good understand of both what causes the annual oscillation and the what is causing the long term trend. But now consider the hypothetical situation that this is your data set and you have to decide how to present it in a research paper. You might choose to present the data as an annual average, which would eliminate all the oscillation and give a smooth curve or you might choose to look at only a one decade long slice of the data which would emphasize the annual oscillation rather than the long term trend. Both of those choices might be completely ethical depending on the point you were trying to make. They might also be highly unethical depending on the point you were trying to make.
Without a broader context it really isn't possible to tell whether the authors were doing something deliberately misleading and unethical or not. Taking a snipet from an email where two authors discussed how to present data to "hide a decline" isn't enough to judge whether or not they were actually doing anything unethical. I need to know the details of the data they were presenting, the point they were trying to make, if they actual did "hide the decline" or simply discussed it and if they did, what they did to hide the decline and whether what they did was clearly identified in the report. The statement alone is certainly reason to further investigate into what actually happened but it is by no means proof or even strong evidence of scientific misconduct.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder if the IPCC included this in their calculations. Ignoring this data would be like grading the thermal efficiency of your house without looking at the variances in your neighbors. It seems very odd to ignore the most powerful force of heat in the solar system as it's impacts on neighboring planets.
I don't argue that we pump green house gasses into the atmosphere but our C02 is a minor greenhouse gas. Water vapor is by far the most significant greenhouse gas and Mt St Helens is the biggest contributor to greenhouse gasses in WA st. Entire continents no longer burn due to wildfires.
My only contention is, the science is not settled no matter how loudly it is proclaimed or how much the doubters are ridiculed or how wealthy the proponents become.
I don't want to hear about sacrifice for a greater good from a man who uses more electricity to heat his pool than I do in my house. The millionaires with stock in green companies, flying around in private jets and polluting more than 100 families. A future world where you can have as big a house and consume as much as you want, provided you are wealthy enough to pay your carbon offsets. Unfortunately, the poor and middle class will just have to do with less.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:I wonder if the IPCC included this in their calculations.
Yes, the IPCC did consider the large body of scientific research that has been done on solar cycles and climate change. They do not cite Abdussamatov's work since it was not published before their most recent report but they do cite numerous other researches who have looked at the solar component of climate change. If you are sincerely interested, here is a link to the relevant chapter of their most recent report.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
