acid oceans,
category: general [glöplog]
Of course eeebliss, one shouldn't assume it's literally "old vs young" - but everyone in science has something to gain by being able to convincingly disprove the status quo. Just look at what happened to a patent clerk in Switzerland!
(The "status quo" here being that AGW is a real phenomenon, so my point is don't assume that there's some massive international science conspiracy to perpetuate it, or indeed anything else :) )
There is a political conspiracy around this, I have no doubt about it anymore. And it involves a few scientists in by hook or by crook. Did you see the MIT debate posted in the other thread? I didn't get the impression that there was much of an agreement from either panel or audience and got the impression that the whole debate is actually about risk assessment more than anything else. I would argue that GW is a real phenomena but the A part of it remains largely speculative and based on personal biases. In relation to our environment there is no doubt about it. We need to do something. We have a patch of non-degradable plastic the size of Texas floating around in our Ocean. That can't be good. There is enough that needs to get done.
This is not coined on you TZ but is rather an observation. It is funny that the people who reject the whole "climategate" on a spinal reflex by saying that those scientists were just humans being humans when refering to the now infamous emails from the CRU, fail to reflect on the fact of how easily the human being is corrupted. I suspect that scientists as individuals have no better protection against this, than the rest of us. And the other way around; Science should not be hurt by the wrongdoings of a handful of scientists" nor should every single scientists be put under public scrutiny because of it.
This is not coined on you TZ but is rather an observation. It is funny that the people who reject the whole "climategate" on a spinal reflex by saying that those scientists were just humans being humans when refering to the now infamous emails from the CRU, fail to reflect on the fact of how easily the human being is corrupted. I suspect that scientists as individuals have no better protection against this, than the rest of us. And the other way around; Science should not be hurt by the wrongdoings of a handful of scientists" nor should every single scientists be put under public scrutiny because of it.
I think one of the problems is that terms we use have a very different meaning within the field. Like, if I submitted a di-muon mass spectrum plot with bad error bars to a panel session, then later said I was going to "fix the error bars", what that means is that I'm going to run better simulations or collect more accurate data. If you didn't know the tongue-in-cheek way we have these discussions, you might think I was going to falsify the errors or something like that. It's part of the "language of the trade" - kind of rolling one's eyes and ironically saying something flippant when what you are actually talking about is valid scientific work. But the person on the street might take it literally if they don't know any better. Which is why such discussions are only informal, and between colleagues to whom the context is well known... until someone with a vested interest (or paid by someone who does) cracks some email server password to try and 'expose' the 'biased workings' of science! ;)
Ah, but it is professionals and scientists themselves who are insisting that what those "hacked" e-mails reveals is bad science and unethical. Even scientists who are pro the AGW hypothesis. Of course there has been a lot of spinal reflexes on the scientific blogs, but those who actually took the time to get a bit more in depth with this are not amused and this is something they state in public. So while I have no doubt that what you state is true in general, it completely misses the target.
Like who? Contrary to popular belief both sides are extremely well funded and the large oil companies LOVE the carbon trading scheme so they certainly have no interest in off tracking the debate. which is probably why you will find Shell and Bp among the founding sponsors of the CRU. It is not like the Pro AGW'ers like to portray it, David against Goliath. It is Giant vs. Giant. So whom, I wonder, would have an interest in releasing those mails outside of a whistle blower frustrated with bad science? What kind of master hacker could gather those emails and those data. How did the outsider know what he was looking for and where? There is a whole department of computer technology and sciences, do you really think a hacker would have free roam on their systems for weeks on end to sniff about as he pleased without any of the young geeks noticing?
Quote:
until someone with a vested interest (or paid by someone who does) cracks some email server
Like who? Contrary to popular belief both sides are extremely well funded and the large oil companies LOVE the carbon trading scheme so they certainly have no interest in off tracking the debate. which is probably why you will find Shell and Bp among the founding sponsors of the CRU. It is not like the Pro AGW'ers like to portray it, David against Goliath. It is Giant vs. Giant. So whom, I wonder, would have an interest in releasing those mails outside of a whistle blower frustrated with bad science? What kind of master hacker could gather those emails and those data. How did the outsider know what he was looking for and where? There is a whole department of computer technology and sciences, do you really think a hacker would have free roam on their systems for weeks on end to sniff about as he pleased without any of the young geeks noticing?