On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Gar Lipow <[email protected]> wrote: > Acceptability of behavior is not the point. The point is that behavior > on the part of climate scientists no more reflects the truth or > falsity of their data and analysis, than bad behavior on the part of > Newton reflects on the truth or falsity of gravity or calculus. It is > the classic ad hominem fallacy; "this is false because of your > character flaws".
This is not a character flaw. It is not like they were caught shoplifting or something. This goes to the validity of their work. Truth or falsity is not the only question here; credibility is also relevant. How do we know that the conclusions these people's results are not just made up lies, when they clearly have a documented history of lying and deception? In Newton's case, such doubts were, in the final analysis, resolved in the course of a complex historical process that included people independently verifying his findings. Do you want to wait until climate science gets independently verified by trustworthy non-liars someday? If not, then you should care about this scandal. Finally, comparisons with Newton are always a bit frivolous. The man was a unique genius. -raghu. -- "The weather is here, wish you were beautiful." _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
