Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
Climate-Cat's out of the Bag!
Log In to post a reply

81 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
Merrick
Merrick
2148 posts

Re: Climate-Cat's out of the Bag!
Dec 02, 2009, 16:48
DarkMagus wrote:
The leaked code and log of the work done on the software are a disgrace to science


Most of it is deathly dull, some of the 'damning' stuff is taken out of context (the meaning if the word 'trick', for example), but that isn't the point. The point is that there is some stuff that is evidence of unscientific behaviour, and you're absolutely right that it's a disgrace.

And if these were the only scientists we relied on (or 'the world experts' as you put it), then this would be one of the most major scandals of our time.

however, it's some stuff by several scientists, of the tens of thousands around the world. Are you suggesting all of them are corrupt?

DarkMagus wrote:
One implication of the leaks is that the peer review system was corrupted.


Er no, it was that people might have been abusing it on that occasion. It doesn't invalidate the system itself at all.

Publishing in peer review allows for anyone in your field of expertise to examine what you've done. Those who can undo your findings tend to get their work a better platform, so really, it calls forth those who disagree.

DarkMagus wrote:
You suggest data hasn't been fudged.


I'm sorry if you took that implication, it's certainly not what I think. There are things in the leak that I beleive are dishonest. However, I it is the sort of crucial datanor on the sort of massive scale that people like the Telegraph blogs, Jshell and yourself are implying.

DarkMagus wrote:
In fairness there may be others producing more credible work, but after this it really need to be opened up to the same kind of scrutiny to be validated as good science.


I completely agree.

DarkMagus wrote:
I'd have thought the news that people may be fudging things would be good.


It would, if it meant what you're implying. Sadly, it doesn't.

DarkMagus wrote:
1. Do you want AGW to be real?


No.

But if, as the overwhelming evidence shows, it is, then we need to respond on the scale and with the urgency it demands.
Topic Outline:

U-Know! Forum Index