The evidence is never irrefutable. That’s a common misconception. In scientific studies you often have contradictions and outliers. But it’s the overwhelming other evidence that leads scientists (and mathematicians) to form a conclusion. Unfortunately when people focus on the contradictions and outliers, they can manipulate a study and make a claim that it means something else. Scientific results often have probabilities, yep, they do – there is no black and white, it is or it isn’t. Sorry, this is the real analog world, and black and white logic often doesn’t apply. Of course, in the I.T. world I can understand why everything needs to be black and white.
By the way, I also have the opinion that Pachauri should be sacked. He’s not a scientist but a manager at the top of the organisation, probably someone’s political appointment. I am sure he has a lot of very good scientists working beneath him, however he has not managed the situation well at all, and their email policy is a shocker. T. From: ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com [mailto:ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com] On Behalf Of David Connors Sent: Sunday, 28 February 2010 7:31 PM To: ausDotNet Subject: Re: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed On 27 February 2010 16:49, Tony Wright <ton...@tpg.com.au> wrote: And I suppose Warwick Hughes has it all right? I don't know. I didn't really opine on Warwick Hughes. The only stuff I posted about him was written by Phil Jones of CRU. [ ... Rant about Warwick deleted ... ] So if you don’t believe any scientist can be credible, who do you believe in? I did not say I don't believe any scientist can be credible. What I DID say is that people who are dismissing the climategate stuff and AR4 nonesense out of hand should stop - breathe - and read the material. Draw your own conclusions on the basis of having read it. It is clear from the angry e-mails I'm getting on this thread is that my merely questioning the content of AR4 (esp WG2) as well as the motivations of the people outed in the CRU e-mail leaks/hacks is enough to tick people off in a major way. Again, I'm merely suggesting you look at the material. As for Warwick Hughes being a nutter or whatever - that may be the case but it does not at all detract from the fact Phil Jones said he didn't want to send him data because Hughes 'would just try and find something wrong with it'. That statement is utterly unscientific. If the 'debate is over' and there is 'scientific consensus' from the 95% of scientists as you suggest (i.e. the evidence must be irrefutable) then why not just give him the source and data? If he does find something wrong with it - that is the scientific method is supposed to work. If he makes a stink to ask for it can comes up with nothing then he looks like a fool. Only the ones with a neo-conservative agenda? Only ones that agree with your point of view? Groan. No. However I do think it is healthy and logical to question the scientists who write stuff like the material in the CRU hack/leak. They cannot, on one hand, say that "The debate is over" to anyone with an opposing viewpoint, and at the same time write crap like this: ; ; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!! ; yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904] valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$ 2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!' ; yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey) That is, the 5 in 100 scientists that don’t believe in climate change? Perhaps American Spectator, a newspaper considered right-wing in a country that we consider further to the right, funded by Richard Scaife, the principal air to the Mellon Banking, Oil and Aluminium fortune? There was a time very recently when 100% of doctors and researchers thought that stomach ulcers were caused by stress and lifestyle choices. It took a lone 'idiot' to drink a vile of bacteria in front of a conference to prove simple anti-biotics was an effective cure for a whole range of issues. Just because most people believe something does not automatically make it right. A modicum of healthy skepticism is not unwarranted especially given the recent revelations. Would you rather fly blind without the scientists to warn you of what might be coming up if we don’t be careful? I'd rather people would engage their brains and look at information from a variety of sources and keep a balanced view of what is going on - and especially stop using labels like 'denialist' and phrases like 'the debate is over' (there never really was one). The fact of the matter is that some of the stuff in AR4 was SO embarrassing that it would result in staff being sacked in any normal organisation. Anyone who says that the stuff in the CRU archives is 'quoted out of context' has not read any of the material. When you add context back in - some of it gets far worse. What did Pachauri say about people who questioned the IPCC AR4 glacier figures? He said that they believed in "voodoo science". It turns out - that were correct. David. -- David Connors (da...@codify.com) Software Engineer Codify Pty Ltd - www.codify.com Phone: +61 (7) 3210 6268 | Facsimile: +61 (7) 3210 6269 | Mobile: +61 417 189 363 V-Card: https://www.codify.com/cards/davidconnors Address Info: https://www.codify.com/contact
