[Peter H]

Quote

Uskys - 9/3/2010 20:18 Thanks for your replies Andy & Peter. I find likening peer-reviewing process to sport to be very questionable. The peer review process is established that it will examine the scientists science from a neutral perspective I would hope..... and should be far from just a rubber stamp process which is how it appears the UEA CRU scientists have gained their reviews....and this is why it could undermine science generally. Peter, you say you hope not ( Peter, do you feel that the reputation of science , in general, may be undermined? ) . I think they should be accountable for their research and hold their data up for scrutiny.

So do I. It is.

Will science be damaged? Perhaps, while the weather is cold, probably not over times scales we call climate. The truth will out and the best way we have to find out the truth about the world about us is science - it's being attacked atm, but it will win.

[admin]

Peter H - 9/3/2010 20:24

Quote

Dave Clarke - 9/3/2010 20:16 So by that, your saying that what we have currently is transparent and trully independant?

Quote

Peter H: I've been reading about climate for several decades. I don't see some multi decade scam going on I see science 'building on the shoulders of giants'.

It's going through a very shaky time on those shoulders.

Quote

Peter H: I've met a few climate scientists over the years. They are, be definition, people with inquisitive mind. I find it's impossible to think they're out to find anything other than the truth. My opinion.

As all scientists are, but I question the funding dilemma, the politics, the underhand information exchanges, not the scientists themselves. It is the points mentioned previously which make it so hard to swallow for the layman.

[Andy Mayhew]

Quote

Dave Clarke - 9/3/2010 20:06 Well until the climate research process is transparent and trully independant, the reputation stigma will remain as it is now.

Define transparent and truly independant?

And do you have any examples of other areas of science that you think meet these criteria?   

What is good is that, as in all areas of science, there is disagreement.  Hence they've had to reach a consensus on the fact that human activity is causing global warming (and continue to have much disagreement on the causes, amounts and future predictions).

[Uskys]

Its not fact Andy :)

[admin]

[QUOTE]Andy Mayhew - 9/3/2010 20:45

[QUOTE]Dave Clarke - 9/3/2010 20:06 Well until the climate research process is transparent and trully independant, the reputation stigma will remain as it is now.[/QUOTE]

Define transparent and truly independant?

And do you have any examples of other areas of science that you think meet these criteria?   

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Yes, sports science.

[QUOTE] What is good is that, as in all areas of science, there is disagreement.  Hence they've had to reach a consensus on the fact that human activity is causing global warming (and continue to have much disagreement on the causes, amounts and future predictions).

[/QUOTE]

It's the uncertainty that is clearly there in that very consensus that gives the layman, media etc etc their fuel.

[admin]

Quote

Uskys - 9/3/2010 20:49 Its not fact Andy :)

Haha yes, we wouldn't be having this discussion if it was  [sun]

[Peter H]

Quote

Uskys - 9/3/2010 20:49 Its not fact Andy :)

And it's not a fact that scientist have done anything, at all, wrong. But that doesn't stop the allegations...

So, if you want facts you should dismiss any allegations since none of them are 'fact'.

[admin]

Quote

Peter H - 9/3/2010 20:59

Quote

Uskys - 9/3/2010 20:49 Its not fact Andy :)

So, if you want facts you should dismiss any allegations since none of them are 'fact'.

On the flipside, can you see why the general public is dismissing the allegations of AGW, as none of those are 'fact'?

[Sam Jowett]

That old chestnut eh? A consensus is about as reliable as science can provide isn't it?... which we have... ;)

[admin]

AGreed, but the current state of climate research needs some serious overhauling for it to be credible, even it seems with some govts.

[Andy Mayhew]

Well there's a consensus of opinion now that the Chicxulub impact caused the dinosaur extinction*

I wonder how those who disagree with this consensus will go about trying to overturn it?

By trying to discredit the scientists behind the consensus?

Or reassessing the evidence and producing new data and papers to support their alternative contention?


btw, what is the alternative contention to AGW?




* I disagree

[Peter H]

Quote

Andy Mayhew - 9/3/2010 21:27 Well there's a consensus of opinion now that the Chicxulub impact caused the dinosaur extinction* I wonder how those who disagree with this consensus will go about trying to overturn it? By trying to discredit the scientists behind the consensus? Or reassessing the evidence and producing new data and papers to support their alternative contention? btw, what is the alternative contention to AGW? * I disagree

Exactly.

If science is faulty someone will notice - fame becons for such people, so science is constantly tested by scientists. But, if people can't find fault with a science they don't like they have to resort to attacking the scientists as the next 'best' option...

[Peter H]

Quote

Dave Clarke - 9/3/2010 21:18 AGreed, but the current state of climate research needs some serious overhauling for it to be credible, even it seems with some govts.

Well, yes, the weather has been cold.

[Andy Mayhew]

Quote

Dave Clarke - 9/3/2010 20:51

Quote

Andy Mayhew - 9/3/2010 20:45

And do you have any examples of other areas of science that you think meet these criteria?   

Yes, sports science.

You mean like the issue of whether modern football boots are responsible for the increased incidence of metatarsal injuries amongst footballers?

Not really what I meant, nor an area I have any interest in. 

 

But in the wider realm of medical science I'm quite sure there is plenty of disagreement and even secrecy.  

And even more confusion amongst the public as to whether drinking wine, eating apples or jogging will make you live longer or kill you :D  

 

[admin]

Quote

Andy Mayhew - 9/3/2010 21:37

Quote

Dave Clarke - 9/3/2010 20:51

Quote

Andy Mayhew - 9/3/2010 20:45

And do you have any examples of other areas of science that you think meet these criteria?   

Yes, sports science.

You mean like the issue of whether modern football boots are responsible for the increased incidence of metatarsal injuries amongst footballers?

Not really what I meant, nor an area I have any interest in. 

 

But in the wider realm of medical science I'm quite sure there is plenty of disagreement and even secrecy.  

And even more confusion amongst the public as to whether drinking wine, eating apples or jogging will make you live longer or kill you :D  

 

Yes, do as the doctor (used to) ordered and take an ounce of cocaine and 20 Players  666

[Peter H]

Quote

Dave Clarke - 9/3/2010 21:04

Quote

Peter H - 9/3/2010 20:59

Quote

Uskys - 9/3/2010 20:49 Its not fact Andy :)

So, if you want facts you should dismiss any allegations since none of them are 'fact'.

On the flipside, can you see why the general public is dismissing the allegations of AGW, as none of those are 'fact'?

Nice try  [^]

There are shedfuls of scientific evidence to back up AGW, but for the allegations this thread is about? Right wing blogs and media? Like I say, nice try [y]

[admin]

Quote

Andy Mayhew - 9/3/2010 21:27 Well there's a consensus of opinion now that the Chicxulub impact caused the dinosaur extinction

Unless you were actually there it's just conjecture?!

[Peter H]

Quote

Dave Clarke - 9/3/2010 21:40

Quote

Andy Mayhew - 9/3/2010 21:27 Well there's a consensus of opinion now that the Chicxulub impact caused the dinosaur extinction

Unless you were actually there it's just conjecture?!

Well, that's history done for then...

[Ozone]

Quote

If science is faulty someone will notice - fame becons for such people, so science is constantly tested by scientists. But, if people can't find fault with a science they don't like they have to resort to attacking the scientists as the next 'best' option...

Well, the science was extremely 'faulty' (some would say fraudulent), and somebody noticed and exposed the 'fault'.

People were only attacking the 'scientists' who were revealed to be absolute weasels.

[admin]

Quote

Peter H - 9/3/2010 21:41

Quote

Dave Clarke - 9/3/2010 21:40

Quote

Andy Mayhew - 9/3/2010 21:27 Well there's a consensus of opinion now that the Chicxulub impact caused the dinosaur extinction

Unless you were actually there it's just conjecture?!

Well, that's history done for then...

No Peter, your just being obtuse, there are records, etc etc, but ancient history is dependant on research, and concensus! WHo's to say that dinosaurs weren't all bright pink??? Unless you were there it's a wild stab in the dark. And as this is going way off topic due to Andy bringing in dinosaurs, I suggest we get back on it!