Global warming? Check for yourself • Hacker News Board

Re: Global warming? Check for yourself

#51

Post by jbooth » Fri, Mar 05, 2010, 5:38 PM UTC

vixen99 wrote: post #45

Tichy wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"And given the recent breaches of trust amongst the climatologists" Or maybe you have fallen for the propaganda of the denialists? Anyway, I think usually the actual scientific papers come with data references (otherwise they are indeed useless), but there is also a place for articles that normal people can understand. Not everybody wants or can code up their own verification program for every scientific article they…

Denialist? You sound like a member of the Spanish Inquisition. Are we talking science (where constant questioning is [or is that just silly me?] was always supposed to be intrinsic to the investigative process) or religion? The latter, it seems, as far as you're concerned. Has it dawned on you that use of the word is a kind of own goal? "Hey folks, we believe in the true religion and must rout those non-believers!"

I linked this downthread, you should give it a look : http://www.xkcd.com/675/

Re: Global warming? Check for yourself

#52

Post by CWuestefeld » Fri, Mar 05, 2010, 10:19 PM UTC

Tichy wrote: post #50

vixen99 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Denialist? You sound like a member of the Spanish Inquisition. Are we talking science (where constant questioning is [or is that just silly me?] was always supposed to be intrinsic to the investigative process) or religion? The latter, it seems, as far as you're concerned. Has it dawned on you that use of the word is a kind of own goal? "Hey folks, we believe in the true religion and must rout those non-believers!"

Well I was responding to "breaches of trust", which seems like propaganda given that all that can be pointed to is some minor errors that are bound to happen in a large scale undertaking. I don't think calling those "breaches of trust" is very scientific. Maybe the one about the Himalya glaciers could be called like that, but I don't think it was the actual scientists being sloppy in that case. I was only using the w…

all that can be pointed to is some minor errors that are bound to happen in a large scale undertaking

Ahem. Conspiring to thwart freedom of information laws is something that is bound to happen in large scale undertakings? Either you're propagandizing yourself, or you're someone that I really don't want working for my company.

The glacier thing was characterized as a "typographical error", which itself is clearly intended to minimize the ethical breach. A "typographical error" is one related to the typography -- maybe transposing digits, or accidently chopping off the bottom of a page or something. It clearly does not apply to errors of judgment, including non-reviewed sources as if they're factual.

None of this refutes AGW, which is actually my point. It makes us all wary. And the cure for that is openness and transparency. A battle of ad hominem attacks doesn't do anything for either side of the debate. But in the long run, building a case that we can all trust because we watched it being erected is to the benefit of all -- tree huggers and denialists alike.

Re: Global warming? Check for yourself

#53

Post by Tichy » Sat, Mar 06, 2010, 1:38 AM UTC

CWuestefeld wrote: post #52

Tichy wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I was responding to "breaches of trust", which seems like propaganda given that all that can be pointed to is some minor errors that are bound to happen in a large scale undertaking. I don't think calling those "breaches of trust" is very scientific. Maybe the one about the Himalya glaciers could be called like that, but I don't think it was the actual scientists being sloppy in that case. I was only using the w…

all that can be pointed to is some minor errors that are bound to happen in a large scale undertaking Ahem. Conspiring to thwart freedom of information laws is something that is bound to happen in large scale undertakings? Either you're propagandizing yourself, or you're someone that I really don't want working for my company. The glacier thing was characterized as a "typographical error", which itself is clearly int…

"Conspiring to thwart freedom of information laws"

When did that happen? If you are referring to the leaked emails, I don't think the case is so clear. Unless you want to believe it to be so.

The glaciers: don't remember the exact details, but wasn't it some relatively informal publication where the boss of the organization slipped something in without verifying with his scientists? Sounds more like sloppiness - although they should have uncovered the error sooner. But who knows, they might have had other things on their mind. I don't know how many scientists actually think about Himalayan glaciers on a daily basis (do you?). Except for the ones living in the Himalayan, one of was asked over the phone and apparently misinterpreted.

In any case, I don't think that error was made in an actual scientific paper, it was more part of general propaganda and politics. Not that I like it at all, but I don't see how it discredits the science as a whole.

In fact, I personally think dwelling on minor details and trying to blow them up to be elephants is a major indicator of revisionism.

Re: Global warming? Check for yourself

#54

Post by azgolfer » Sat, Mar 06, 2010, 2:56 AM UTC

vena wrote: post #40

azgolfer wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems to me an a guy who couldn't get hired as a physicist had a rather large effect on physics in 1905. The hiring process is a form of 'peer review'.

I really don't think you should take your understanding of Einstein's early career from Yahoo Serious movies.

from Wikipedia "After graduating, Einstein spent almost two frustrating years searching for a teaching post,"

Re: Global warming? Check for yourself

#55

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Mar 06, 2010, 3:57 AM UTC

azgolfer wrote: post #54

vena wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don't think you should take your understanding of Einstein's early career from Yahoo Serious movies.

from Wikipedia "After graduating, Einstein spent almost two frustrating years searching for a teaching post,"

[deleted]

Re: Global warming? Check for yourself

#56

Post by vena » Sat, Mar 06, 2010, 4:40 AM UTC

azgolfer wrote: post #54

vena wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don't think you should take your understanding of Einstein's early career from Yahoo Serious movies.

from Wikipedia "After graduating, Einstein spent almost two frustrating years searching for a teaching post,"

Which is about 1/10th of what your post is implying. You might want to read something deeper than a wikipedia summary.

Re: Global warming? Check for yourself

#57

Post by azgolfer » Sat, Mar 06, 2010, 6:47 AM UTC

vena wrote: post #56

azgolfer wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

from Wikipedia "After graduating, Einstein spent almost two frustrating years searching for a teaching post,"

Which is about 1/10th of what your post is implying. You might want to read something deeper than a wikipedia summary.

Peer review is neither necessary nor sufficient for science.

Re: Global warming? Check for yourself

#58

Post by vena » Sat, Mar 06, 2010, 11:19 AM UTC

azgolfer wrote: post #57

vena wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is about 1/10th of what your post is implying. You might want to read something deeper than a wikipedia summary.

Peer review is neither necessary nor sufficient for science.

And Einstein would possibly have agreed with that to some extent, as evidenced by his reply in 1936 to the rejection of the only paper of his ever even subject to peer review, even then a new concept in fields unrelated to medicine. This has literally nothing to do with his inability to find work after he graduated university or the hiring process of science institutions in general. This emotional argument doesn't just not reflect Einstein on any level deeper than a Wikipedia summary of a bio, but lacks any historical perspective as well.

Einstein's 1905 works, specifically the Annus Mirabilis papers, lacked the formal review process we understand today, but were certainly reviewed by the two Nobel prize-winning physicists who selected them for publication in their journal. The formal review panel concept simply did not exist at the time outside of the medical fields, but that is not to say there was no stringent editorial control or gatekeeping in physics journals, and certainly not in Annalen der Physik. If anything, Einstein was subject to a far less fair and inclusive process.