News that makes you say WTF! (22 Viewers)

Trequartista

Trequartista

Fuoriclasse
#2,237
Jul 1, 2010
26,336
#2,237
Hustini said:
This.

It's all about money & political agenda now, not science.
Click to expand...
climate science had never gotten so much funding before the global warming hysteria, why would scientists purposely de-fund their field by being honest and following the evidence?

The good old phrase 'follow the money' is very relevant in this case.

Politicians love it as well, best pretext ever for higher taxes and big government, in order to 'save the planet'.
 
swag

swag

L'autista
Administrator
#2,238
Sep 23, 2003
83,441
#2,238
Trequartista said:
The peer-review process has been corrupted, as climategate has demonstrated. Also, peer-review existed at the time of eugenics and was applied.
Click to expand...
I guess I don't understand what you would describe as the scientific method then. It doesn't sound like the one I grew up with and helped publish papers in.

I guess if people can create their own religions, they may as well create their own definition of what constitutes science.
 
Trequartista

Trequartista

Fuoriclasse
#2,239
Jul 1, 2010
26,336
#2,239
swag said:
I guess I don't understand what you would describe as the scientific method then. It doesn't sound like the one I grew up with and helped publish papers in.

I guess if people can create their own religions, they may as well create their own definition of what constitutes science.
Click to expand...
What does is sound like exactly?
 
swag

swag

L'autista
Administrator
#2,240
Sep 23, 2003
83,441
#2,240
Trequartista said:
What does is sound like exactly?
Click to expand...
It sounds like what Red cited from the NY Times: belief above all else.

Climate change is far, far away from my pet topic. Science is. So I hate when rank amateurs go around citing opinion pieces of either gas & oil industry wonks or agenda-driven academic nut jobs in either case, and all it takes is a few people who hear what they want to hear and it's gospel. Even if that's gospel a labelled "Opinion" piece in Forbes or citations from the Daily Mail.

Surely, if you follow the topic, you must be aware of the infamous "Escalator" debunk argument where you choose short term trends from a limited data set, ignore the error bars, presume absolutes, and generalize for the longer term. This is why peer review is important: these are exactly the sort of statistical gymnastics and fallacies that get rooted out. Whether you're trying to figure out the efficacy of transplanting islet cells in diabetics -- or if to weed out the sky-is-falling Apocalypse fantasies and the oil & gas magnates who want to cash out on options and hit retirement before anyone catches on.

The problem with going for an individual opinion here or there without checks or balances is that you have the sushi boat approach: you just choose the things you want and ignore the rest. That's not science at all. Better if you just play with the data yourself in those cases, e.g.: here's Chicago O'Hare:
http://weatherspark.com/#!climate;a...rt;ctum=0;cth=800;ctmy=10;ctsy=1978;ctey=2010
Just looking at that alone doesn't really suggest a major cooling trend when I look at the reported weather data for a number of cities over the past 50 years. Click on some of the cities in blue that show downward trends, and you'll see how easy it is to pick a data set that fits your beliefs.

I'd trust that before I trust a lone gunman opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 17)