tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24631933.post8423021730531576868..comments2024-03-29T06:50:18.111-04:00Comments on Arrowhead Alpines Blog: Global warming and transparency in scienceJosephhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14433418903218452909noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24631933.post-85424812837744122092009-12-09T01:39:46.648-05:002009-12-09T01:39:46.648-05:00A scientist who lies is one of the lowest forms of...A scientist who lies is one of the lowest forms of life known to man -- at about the same level as a doctor who experiments on his patients without their knowledge or consent. Falsifying or repressing scientific data is an obscene betrayal of the public trust, and these people belong in the Eighth Circle of Hell. I'm sure they had the best of intentions -- but, after all, what else would you expect their road be paved with?<br /><br />Does this mean global warming is bunk? Probably not -- but what bothers me is that, short of going to the trouble of becoming an expert on atmospheric science myself, I have no way of knowing. Everything I thought I knew about climate change was based on assumptions about the basic trustworthiness of the scientific community. Uncovering a nest of crooks at the heart of that community throws a lot of things into doubt.<br /><br />I'm becoming increasingly sympathetic to Moldbug's theory that what is making institutional science corrupt is its unhealthy relationship with government, and that the principle of separation of church and state needs to be generalized into the <a href="http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/06/separation-of-information-and-security.html" rel="nofollow">separation of information and security</a>.Wm Jas Tychonievichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07446790072877463982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24631933.post-16019153993452542862009-12-08T09:14:51.836-05:002009-12-08T09:14:51.836-05:00Matt, I haven't read the actual e-mails (there...Matt, I haven't read the actual e-mails (there are something like a 1000 of them...) but I hope to start digging into them this weekend. When I first heard about them (NPR, NY Times) they didn't seem particularly damning -- but the specifics included in the story from Science were a lot more shocking.<br />I agree, though, that it doesn't reveal any game-changing conclusions. I'm not doubting climate change -- just the methods being used to promote action. Hiding information to get people to do/think something is wrong -- even if what you want them to do is right.Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14433418903218452909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24631933.post-28209290215475451972009-12-08T09:01:40.728-05:002009-12-08T09:01:40.728-05:00We have a discussion in our household about how mu...We have a discussion in our household about how much people dislike having to change their behaviors.~~If people can be convinced that Climate Change isn't happening or that it is naturally occurring, they don't have to take responsible action. Sigh. gailGailhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16194325535496408116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24631933.post-84284191609903216022009-12-07T19:20:37.065-05:002009-12-07T19:20:37.065-05:00I haven't read the email myself, but from what...I haven't read the email myself, but from what I've heard they don't really change anything. Supposedly the data they were trying to "suppress" was tree ring data that has been considered (in peer review journals) to be unreliable for years but that keeps being presented to back up "skeptics." <br /><br />I think a lot of the worst sounding stuff was probably just sarcastic comments made between friends who were frustrated that non-scientists were telling them how to do their job. Lots of scientists, among themselves, make fun of the public's poor comprehension of "basic" stuff like evolution. If you read any specific emails that seem damning though, I'd be interested to hear about it!Matt DiLeohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08602997050973123349noreply@blogger.com