Speaking of thorny issues

[Avelorn]

Originally posted by Evil Dave
@ Avelorn the Hockey stick graph has been debunked and published by two Canadians.
I\'ll try to find the link.
Here
It\'s a PDF.

Thanks for the link.

Saying that the hockeystick has been debunked is wrong however. That paper hasn\'t even been published properly in a scientific journal (other than partly as a critical commentary in nature I believe). It has been written in several versions by the \"semiretired Toronto minerals consultant\" Stephen McIntyre (Ad hominem ) and the economist Ross McKitrick.

There is so much text on this that I don\'t know where to start. But the M&M article has been debunked in several peer review articles for example. And Realclimate and other sites has written lengths about it.

the most readable article (PDF) I can find on the subject, but it is quite confusing at times imo. If you click the online version they make some clarifications in the comments sections that at least helped med.

For an critical overview of the field of surface temperature reconstructions (that I sneakily found through Mckitricks site): Click here (PDF) I found it quite easy to read, though I haven\'t plunged through it all yet.

And a commentary to it by Realclimate

I have no doubt that our understanding of the climate will change much, but it\'s apparent to me that the finds that lay basis for the IPCC report for example comes from well-founded beliefs.

 

[vincegamer]

Originally posted by Evil Dave
I am God. If you Vince, do not send me a million dollars next week, I shall smite thee. Now I know you are an atheist, I know you do not believe, but wouldn\'t you rather be safe than sorry? lol

not the same. The probability that you are god is so infinitessimally small as to be not worth considering.
Now if thousands of scientists start publishing papers about how you are god I may have to rethink things.

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by vincegamer

Originally posted by Evil Dave
I am God. If you Vince, do not send me a million dollars next week, I shall smite thee. Now I know you are an atheist, I know you do not believe, but wouldn\'t you rather be safe than sorry? lol

not the same. The probability that you are god is so infinitessimally small as to be not worth considering.
Now if thousands of scientists start publishing papers about how you are god I may have to rethink things.

Would written statements from my numerous ex-girlfriends suffice?lol
For a million dollars in funding probably not, for the trillions Global Warning is expected to generate, I\'d bet I could find quite a few to publish papers that I am, indeed god.
I\'ve seen quite a bit of shady, unethical things go down over funding.
We\'ve had numerous accusations that some scientists are being \"paid off\" by Big Money, but the problem there is it goes both ways, if Big Money is suspect, then their enemies must also be.

Micheal Chriton, probably has the best answer to scientific funding and eliminating the bias factor:
Just as we have established a tradition of double-blinded research to determine drug efficacy, we must institute double-blinded research in other policy areas as well. Certainly the increased use of computer models, such as GCMs, cries out for the separation of those who make the models from those who verify them. The fact is that the present structure of science is entrepreneurial, with individual investigative teams vying for funding from organizations which all too often have a clear stake in the outcome of the research - or appear to, which may be just as bad. This is not healthy for science.

Sooner or later, we must form an independent research institute in this country. It must be funded by industry, by government, and by private philanthropy, both individuals and trusts. The money must be pooled, so that investigators do not know who is paying them. The institute must fund more than one team to do research in a particular area, and the verification of results will be a foregone requirement: teams will know their results will be checked by other groups. In many cases, those who decide how to gather the data will not gather it, and those who gather the data will not analyze it. If we were to address the land temperature records with such rigor, we would be well on our way to an understanding of exactly how much faith we can place in global warming, and therefore what seriousness we must address this.

 

[funnymouth]

chriton is not a credible resource.

you yourself have attested to the iefficiency of government, but you are now arguing that all research needs to be government regulated? thats BS. the white house has forced scientests to change their data before (seriously), and setting up a huge bohemoth of a system like that would only promote corruptablility and buracracy.

the scientists of the world are not faking environmental data for money. papers are peer reviewed (or did you mean they need to be revued by people with money?). well, not the one you posted. and as far as i know, we already have such an organization anyhow, called the NSF. the whole point of publishing is to present your data, and your analysis of it. if anyone disagrees they publish a counter arguement.


those proposed \"changes\" display a poor understanding of the scientific methodology , and amount to nothing more than govenment censorship.

i cant believe that chriton, a FANTASY WRITER, who spoke as an \"expert\" witness before congress about global warming, is attacking the credibility of the brightest minds on earth (what a hypocrite) what a joke.

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by funnymouth
chriton is not a credible resource.

you yourself have attested to the iefficiency of government, but you are now arguing that all research needs to be government regulated? thats BS. the white house has forced scientests to change their data before (seriously), and setting up a huge bohemoth of a system like that would only promote corruptablility and buracracy.

the scientists of the world are not faking environmental data for money. papers are peer reviewed (or did you mean they need to be revued by people with money?). well, not the one you posted. and as far as i know, we already have such an organization anyhow, called the NSF. the whole point of publishing is to present your data, and your analysis of it. if anyone disagrees they publish a counter arguement.


those proposed \"changes\" display a poor understanding of the scientific methodology , and amount to nothing more than govenment censorship.

i cant believe that chriton, a FANTASY WRITER, who spoke as an \"expert\" witness before congress about global warming, is attacking the credibility of the brightest minds on earth (what a hypocrite) what a joke.

You are mistaking the Messenger with the message, he did not say it be governmentally regulated, nor did I. Independent research institute = Government control is a wild jump in conclusion. Your bias\' are showing. Even if I disagree with you, I am at least willing to concede and probably use your advice if it is sound. You are overlooking the validity of what is being said because of who said it. More controls and validation is never a bad thing for science. This could be entirely within the scientific community.
As for peer review, both you and I know that there is quite a lot of garbage that does get through, it is just as biased.

This is regularly used in the Physics field on the matter of synchrotron rings, in which a panel of scientists gets the money and decides which ring gets what amount for what research. It is often the case that multiple rings do the exact same experiments as this is a form of verification.

 

[funnymouth]

Originally posted by Evil Dave
As for peer review, both you and I know that there is quite a lot of garbage that does get through it, it is just as biased.

very true. i think we have such a system, but it has become corrupted (as all things do when lots of money is involved) to a degree.

(my biases are showing? is my fly down again :redface: )

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by funnymouth

Originally posted by Evil Dave
As for peer review, both you and I know that there is quite a lot of garbage that does get through it, it is just as biased.

very true. i think we have such a system, but it has become corrupted (as all things do when lots of money is involved).

(my biases are showing? is my fly down again :redface: )

I see absolutely nothing wrong with the idea that Chriton suggests.
The idea that limiting outside influences and bias through pooled funding, and independant research teams is scientifically valid. This in no way shape or form changes the methodology of science, just the funding of it. One could argue that it frees the scientist from the need to worry about grants, and the tendancy to promote hyperbolic statements about their research in order to get more grants. One could also argue that more unbiased indepentant teams studying the same subject, getting the same results would be more validating.

 

[vincegamer]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by vincegamer
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Who does now?
Peer review could still be implemented, but limiting bias in science is a good thing. Everyone is biased to some degree, even scientists.

 

[Brimshack]

The politics would change, but bias would certainly not be eliminated. Groups that now fund research would then simply lobby the resource fund to encourage projects they like and those applying for research would simply learn who is on the board that determines their chances, or the people who will pick the specific comittee, etc. Refracting bias through extra steps might give objectivity a little more breathing room, but of course every bureaucracy and every committe develops its own agenda, it\'s own interests, and its own biases. ...and of course you get the usual maladjustements of top down rsearch. If the guy who designs a project doesn\'t have to collect the data, then sure enough he will ignore real problems in data collection, and so on... Now factor in exponential bureaucratic growth and we have lots more funding paying for the endless committee work than necessary.

No, it wouldn\'t be an appacalypse, but it doesn\'t strike me as an improvement either.

 

[funnymouth]

a utopian society is a good idea too, but itll never happen.

the first problem i see is that information is a commodity (and therfore science) and in an open market \"socialization\" of it would be an impossibility. scientific equipment is available to buy, and so are people.
some organizations (such as the NSF), however, have aspired to the goal you present, and succeded in some respects.

another problem: science is a global phenominon, how would foreign articles be handled. what abour research in different states? eg the united states opted not to fund stem cell research (lol) but california decided to go ahead and do it themselves.

on a tangent:
have you guys seen a movie called \"idiocracy?\" its a funny movie about 500 years in to the future.

 

[vincegamer]

haven\'t seen it, but I want to.
That\'s where Luke Wilson wakes up in the future (ala Woody Allen\'s Sleeper) where society has been dumbed down to the extreme and he, the average joe, is considered brilliant, right?

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by funnymouth
a utopian society is a good idea too, but itll never happen.

the first problem i see is that information is a commodity (and therfore science) and in an open market \"socialization\" of it would be an impossibility. scientific equipment is available to buy, and so are people.
some organizations (such as the NSF), however, have aspired to the goal you present, and succeded in some respects.

another problem: science is a global phenominon, how would foreign articles be handled. what abour research in different states? eg the united states opted not to fund stem cell research (lol) but california decided to go ahead and do it themselves.

That is a somewhat loaded statement, as the Federal Government did provide funding within certain guidelines. tight guidlines, true.

The global phenomenon is not that big of a deal. In the physics field we kind of work without borders, we\'ve got russian parts and had russian funding, funding and researchers from England, China, Kosovo.
We\'ve gotten spare parts delivered from Canadian, German, and English Light Sources and had technicians from many others around the world come in and help us with problems as well as we flying out to other sources to help them with theirs.
Breaking it down into idividual scientific communities might be a start.

@Brimshack: as I and probably funnymouth can tell you: Applying for Grants is a crapload of bueracracy on the state level, a pure nightmare on the federal level.
My college campus has a staff that is just handling the paperwork, including writing the proposals, for science grants alone, nothing else.
Within our community however, there is less buerocracy and the money is usually attainable with only a meeting or two.
ie: just recently we had a major component in our ring go down right at the end of the fiscal year, and was beyond the reach of our remaining budget to purchase. The Non staff scientists, who recieve different grants, realised quickly that we would be inoperational without this part and all took a percentage from their grants to help us buy the part.

In essence it really doesn\'t change that much, since the grants generally go through the campus.

 

[Brimshack]

ED, I am quite familiar with the hazards of grant writing and management. This doesn\'t answer my concerns.

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by Brimshack
ED, I am quite familiar with the hazards of grant writing and management. This doesn\'t answer my concerns.

Hmm... after reareading (sorry) your statement, I\'m having an Idea.
I\'ll get back to you on this.

 

[Brimshack]

First you\'ll have to run it through IRB and submit in triplicate by the designated deadline. If all is in order, I look foreword to reading the summary which my secretary will provide me, assuming of course you make it through our checklist of red flag issues to be avoided.

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by Brimshack
First you\'ll have to run it through IRB and submit in triplicate by the designated deadline. If all is in order, I look foreword to reading the summary which my secretary will provide me, assuming of course you make it through our checklist of red flag issues to be avoided.

Smartasslol

 

[Trevor]

Geologically speaking we are somewhere just right of the c in Tropic. ie we should be seeing cooling in the next few thousand years. My personal worry is that the little ice age was the beginning of this cooling, which would mean that we are seeing warming when it should be cooling, which would mean that the anthropogenic impact is being masked by the colling and we actually have far more heating going on than we are seeing.

Coastal erosion costs $5 billion a year in the US alone, this will only get worse with rising sea levels and increased storm frequency.

Displacement of people as their land disappears or becomes unihabitable is going to cause some \'interesting\' problems, where do these people go? What do they eat and drink? Which countries are going to be willing to let them in? When millions of bangladeshi people have to move where are they gonna go? Are we going to build a wall around London? If not how and where do we move all that infrastructure and people?

What we are currently doing is shitting on our plates before we eat from them. Current practices are unsustainable and will make life harder for those that come after us. Cleaning up our act makes economic and social sense, why people can\'t see this I don\'t know.

Frankly, whether climatic change is affected by humans or not is completely irrelevant, it is in our interest to stop these changes. Using its \'natualness\' as an argument for not doing anything about solving problems is retarded. (By that logic if I get an infected finger I should just let it fester and rot off because thats \'natural\').

 

[darthfoley]

/cast resurrection

lol

 

[Ritual]

No comment!

Gosh!