Judy Curry has a very thoughtful post about
how climate science research is conducted and potentially skewed:
Scientists will only be able to command trust in society if they
follow basic professional standards. Prime among them is to publish the
results of their research, no matter if they support a desirable
storyline or not.
Last year, I encountered a stark example of this. One of my
colleagues was thinking about publishing a paper that challenges the
IPCC interpretation of the previous pause during the 1940s to 1970′s.
My colleague sent a .ppt presentation on this topic to three
colleagues, each of whom is a very respected senior scientist and none
of whom have been particularly vocal advocates on the subject of climate
change (names are withheld to protect the guilty/innocent). Each of
these scientists strongly encouraged my colleague NOT to publish this
paper, since it would only provide fodder for the skeptics. (Note: my
colleague has not yet written this paper, but not because he was
discouraged by these colleagues).
What is at issue here is a conflict between the micro ethics of
individual responsibility for responsible conduct of research and larger
ethical issues associated with the well-being of the public and the
environment. Most such examples are related to suppression of evidence
including attempting to stifle skeptical research (particularly its
publication and dissemination to the public); the Climategate emails
provide abundant examples of this.
I think that this is pretty insightful, and only part of a long and insightful post. Dr. Curry isn't one of those beastly Deniers like me, but rather a "luke warmer" who thinks that we are on net making our climate warmer. However, she thinks that there is a systemic problem in how the science is performed and this is effecting the trust that the public has in the scientific community as a whole. And quite rightly, as she observes from inside the community:
Fuller and Mosher’s book Climategate: The CruTape Letters
argued that ‘noble cause corruption’ was a primary motivation behind
the Climategate deceits. Noble cause corruption is when the ends
(noble) justify the means (ignoble). I think that there is an element
of this that can be seen in the Climategate emails, but I think the
motivated reasoning by climate scientists is more complex (and
ultimately less ‘noble’).
There's a lot of dirty laundry being hung out here.
3 comments:
I'm in the biz ... with a science Fudd in a correct field and a very strong background in instrument development. However, since I simply seek a form of truth and don't expound The Truth, the combination makes me an outcast - but as I've said before - I feel I'm a Protestant working at the Vatican.
These people are Believers. But if one takes a look at the instrumentation, one will develop doubts of the data. But since The Answer is known, who cares?
Look what's happened to AGU over the past 20 years ...
One "scientist" stood in front of a group showing a PP slide comparing "data" to model results ... and made the statement that since the model was Truth, an algorithm needed to be developed to fit the data to the model for use in future "experiments".
I don't believe there's any hope for the next decade or two. Even if we survive the aftermath of the upcoming Syrian escapade.
Q
"there is a systemic problem in how the science is performed and this is effecting the trust that the public has in the scientific community as a whole."
That I completely agree with.
I find myself very suspicious of all scientists now, having seen the self serving pettiness and abject fraud perpetrated by the global worming sciencytists.
It’s not just the global warming scientists.
Say hypothetically that you’re a scientist and you’ve run an experiment and published a paper on radiation. Your peers think it was great and first thing you know you’re scheduled to receive a Nobel Prize. Life is good. You’re famous and the notoriety gives you a soapbox to advance your own personal views that are supported by your discovery.
Then reality rears its ugly head. Another scientist runs a similar experiment that tends to disprove your result. Now your Nobel may be at risk. Do you speak up and tell the Nobel committee that they need to wait on the party? Do you ask the other scientist to hold off on publishing? Do you bluster on and hope that no one notices?
And no, it’s not really hypothetical. Ever hear of Herman Joseph Muller or the linear no-threshold hypothesis? http://radiation-hormesis.com/Muller-ArchTox-1.pdf. This sort of thing predates global warming.
Post a Comment