Climategate Vindication

[eyeball]

Objective research does not exist. All research is biased by the funder and the ideology of the researcher even if that funder is the university.

If a tenured profs hire postdocs they will only hire those that support their ideology. This ensures the supply of replacements when tenured positions come up will be dominated by PhDs that share the ideology of the incumbants.

So who's idea was it incumbent on to fund the research that led to this objective position?

Edited November 8, 2011 by eyeball

[TimG]

So who's idea was it incumbent on to fund the empirically researched facts that led to this position?

You seem to think that all scientific research is based on facts. In many cases, it is entirely opinion loosely supported by statistical analyses on dubious datasets.

[TimG]

Researchers are constantly trying to disprove and one-up one another. You're talking as if they're one homogeneous group and that is far from the case.

In climate science we are told there are an extremely homogeneous group where 97% agree that we should jump on the IPCC bandwagon. All I am arguing is that 'consensus' is artificial and a result of funding pressures and self-selection. Not because of any merit behind the arguments.

[eyeball]

You seem to think that all scientific research is based on facts. In many cases, it is entirely opinion loosely supported by statistical analyses on dubious datasets.

Whatever it is, you seem to think your's must be embedded in rock-solid un-biased evidence.

[cybercoma]

In climate science we are told there are an extremely homogeneous group where 97% agree that we should jump on the IPCC bandwagon. All I am arguing is that 'consensus' is artificial and a result of funding pressures and self-selection. Not because of any merit behind the arguments.

And you're wrong because scientists and academics are extremely competitive with each other and want to be recognized as finding breakthroughs. You're told that there's 97% consensus because it's so very improbable that you would have that level of agreement unless what they were agreeing upon is demonstrably true. If there were any solid evidence against whatever that consensus is, then the competitive nature of science/academia would have people jumping all over it.

[TimG]

And you're wrong because scientists and academics are extremely competitive with each other and want to be recognized as finding breakthroughs.

Finding breakthroughs that don't get them vilified as an evil denier. If it is choice between being vilified by their peers or playing to the crowd most scientists will play to the crowd as long as the evidence is ambiguous enough to keep cognitive dissonance at bay.

You're told that there's 97% consensus because it's so very improbable that you would have that level of agreement unless what they were agreeing upon is demonstrably true.

Well, if you look at the actual question that was asked in the originating study there is no doubt that it is demonstrably true (i.e. the world has warmed and part of it is due to humans). I am referring to how various political hacks (which include many so called scientists) take that number and use it to imply that scientists support the IPCC agenda. If the latter is true then it can only be because of an artificial consensus because the scientific facts simply do not support such a position.

If there were any solid evidence against whatever that consensus is, then the competitive nature of science/academia would have people jumping all over it.

Not in politically sensitive fields like climate were dissenters are quickly vilified. Edited November 8, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

If you don't believe the 97% number, then there's the Naomi Oreskes study as well.

If we're arguing about social effects within the scientific community, though, can't we make the same point about iconoclasts ? There are a lot of social factors that play into those who oppose major theories too.

[cybercoma]

They're only villified if their claims are unsubstantiated or invalid.

[TimG]

If we're arguing about social effects within the scientific community, though, can't we make the same point about iconoclasts ? There are a lot of social factors that play into those who oppose major theories too.

I will agree that many of the iconoclasts are people who are doing so for ideological/personality reasons (i.e. they define themselves by being contrarians). My arguments are not intended to suggest that the iconoclasts are free of these influences.

My point is the image of science as a objective endeavour in search of truth is an illusion. Government money corrupts as much as private money and government bureaucrats have agendas other than the truth. The fear of losing the only job you have that pays 60K a year no less a motivater than a million dollars. The amount of money does not make corruption more likely.

As for Oreskes: her study is also meaningless propoganda tool that provides no insight into he real state of the literature.

Edited November 8, 2011 by TimG

[TimG]

They're only villified if their claims are unsubstantiated or invalid.

Gee thanks. You have just proven that everything you have said is correct. If climate science was actually a field where independent thought was valued then you would have responded by saying the way contrarians are being vilified is unacceptable and inconsistent with the principals of good science.

Instead you choose to rationalize the attempts by the consensus defenders to punish those that dare to dispute their narrative (there by ensuring that few people would ever take such a risk).

People like you are part of the problem. You are blind to your own prejudices.

Edited November 8, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

My point is the image of science as a objective endeavour in search of truth is an illusion. Government money corrupts as much as private money and government bureaucrats have agendas other than the truth. The fear of losing the only job you have that pays 60K a year no less a motivater than a million dollars. The amount of money does not make corruption more likely.

This happens because science is done by human beings. Read Hawking's 'A Brief History of Time' and you can see what the real human motivation is behind subjectivity in science: ego. Even he admits to succumbing to that.

The process of peer review is about as good as it can be, since we're still dealing with humans here.

[TimG]

The process of peer review is about as good as it can be, since we're still dealing with humans here.

The problem is not peer review - but people who put peer review on a pedestal and are blind to its inherent failings. e.g. I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that peer review is a reasonable scientific "spam filter" as long as someone acknowledges sometimes good papers have trouble getting through the "spam filter" because of the failings of the humans involved.

[Michael Hardner]

The problem is not peer review - but people who put peer review on a pedestal and are blind to its inherent failings. e.g. I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that peer review is a reasonable scientific "spam filter" as long as someone acknowledges sometimes good papers have trouble getting through the "spam filter" because of the failings of the humans involved.

So can anything be done ? Or is this - the dialogue we have here - the answer to keep science in check ?

[eyeball]

Not in politically sensitive fields like climate were dissenters are quickly vilified.

Yeah, ever walked a mile in the shoes of anyone who doubts conventional economic wisdom?

You get slagged as being anything from a hippy to Hitler in about as many words.

[Wild Bill]

Yeah, ever walked a mile in the shoes of anyone who doubts conventional economic wisdom?

You get slagged as being anything from a hippy to Hitler in about as many words.

And yet if a TV show has 2 economists on a discussion panel you will get 3 opinions...

[wyly]

The problem is not peer review - but people who put peer review on a pedestal and are blind to its inherent failings. e.g. I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that peer review is a reasonable scientific "spam filter" as long as someone acknowledges sometimes good papers have trouble getting through the "spam filter" because of the failings of the humans involved.

oh ya it's all part of that huge conspiracy among millions of researchers and evil socialists...it's unfortunate the poverty striken energy industry doesn't have the cash to counter this masive conspiracy...

when you can't dispute the science resort to conspiracy theories...

[TimG]

oh ya it's all part of that huge conspiracy among millions of researchers and evil socialists

You need to take a valium. I simply stated the fact that peer review is extremely fallible and cannot and should not be considered to be the final word on all scientific questions. That is hardly a 'conspiracy theory'.

As for the science: it is being disputed. The only trouble are the brain dead morons who think that something cannot be true unless it is published in "approved" journals.

As for oil company money: the ideology of scientists and governments is a much more powerful force. Money cannot buy everything.

Edited November 8, 2011 by TimG

[wyly]

You need to take a valium. I simply stated the fact that peer review is extremely fallible and cannot and should not be considered to be the final word on all scientific questions. That is hardly a 'conspiracy theory'.

peer review works very well indeed...papers concerning GW AGW and CC were all obscure hypothesis that gained acceptance with peer review...in the early days of 1960's there was no slanted process against the hypothesis both view points were given equal status...from nothing one paper at a time a case has been built, without massive funding, without government support, without industry support, without support from the larger scientific community...each paper went through the rigorous peer review system and was accepted or rejected on individual merits, ...now that CC has gained broad consensus support you claim institutional bias in the peer review system (conspiracy)...

As for the science: it is being disputed. The only trouble are the brain dead morons who think that something cannot be true unless it is published in "approved" journals.

accepted theory is a long process of an accumulation of individual papers each with it's own hypothesis that all go through "approved" journals...scientists accept the process as necessary to gain critical feedback from their peers and legitimize their research, brain dead morons do not ...

As for oil company money: the ideology of scientists and governments is a much more powerful force. Money cannot buy everything.

a US government that does not believe in CC and the canadian CPC that it's leader claimed CC is a socialist conspiracy to steal our money? that has gagged our own publically funded scientists, those sympathetic governments? no money can't buy everything ,the energy sector despite it's enormous financial clout can't buy off the integrity of the peer review system or scientists with endless supply of funding ability...

[eyeball]

And yet if a TV show has 2 economists on a discussion panel you will get 3 opinions...

Two of which are just for show.

[bush_cheney2004]

...a US government that does not believe in CC and the canadian CPC that it's leader claimed CC is a socialist conspiracy to steal our money?

A Canadian government controlled by Liberals that ratified the Kyoto Protocol treaty and proceeded to do absolutely nothing to comply.

Yes...the power of money!

[noahbody]

Dangerous levels of global warming will be irreversible by 2017, the International Energy Agency (IEA) warned Wednesday. Only immediate restructuring of the world's energy use will prevent climate change becoming permanent, the agency said.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/green/global-warming/111109/global-warming-be-irreversible-2017-warns-energy-agency

I guess this means the 'if we don't act by 2012, we're doomed' prediction was wrong. We were less than two months away before had no reason to throw money at global warming. Luckily, there's been an extension.

If the earth has been warmer and had higher levels of CO2 and that didn't prevent the earth from cooling, why is it now going to be irreversible in 2017?

[GostHacked]

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/green/global-warming/111109/global-warming-be-irreversible-2017-warns-energy-agency

I guess this means the 'if we don't act by 2012, we're doomed' prediction was wrong. We were less than two months away before had no reason to throw money at global warming. Luckily, there's been an extension.

If the earth has been warmer and had higher levels of CO2 and that didn't prevent the earth from cooling, why is it now going to be irreversible in 2017?

Scare tactics. Just another boogeyman to be afraid of. Give your cash, you will be saved.

[lukin]

Too bad the useless MSM won't pick up information that is contrary to the alarmists.

http://lewrockwell.com/orig11/ball-t8.1.1.html

[SF/PF]

Too bad the useless MSM won't pick up information that is contrary to the alarmists.

http://lewrockwell.com/orig11/ball-t8.1.1.html

From the link:

It is logical to assume that if CO2 change follows temperature change in every record then CO2 cannot be a greenhouse gas.

Except that we know beyond any doubt that CO₂ is in fact a greenhouse gas. If higher frequency, higher energy light (ie. the light from the sun) passes through CO₂, while lower frequency, lower energy light (ie. the light emitted by the surface of the earth) is absorbed by CO₂, then CO₂ is a greenhouse gas. Which it is.

To suggest otherwise is pure quackery.

Now, perhaps the geographer, Tim Ball, meant to suggest that perhaps CO₂ was not the driving force behind the warming trend. But that lack of specificity and clarity in his writing is a pretty good indication of why he hasn't had much luck in getting his papers into peer reviewed journals. Theres no big conspiracy at work here. Tim Ball either doesn't understand, or simply can't intelligibly convey, the science behind the discipline that he seems to want to have a voice in

Any atmospheric science undergraduate that submitted a paper to their professor in which they claimed that "CO₂ is not a greenhouse gas" would immediatly be in danger of recieving a failing grade. It would be like a physics student denying gravity.