Latest on Climate Change

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/10/23/watts-wrote-a-check-he-couldnt-cash/?...

I had to go back quite a way to find a thread on this topic.

Climategate is not just for the British Isles. East Anglia is matched in the USA. See the following article:
> 
> http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti.html
&... 
> And ask yourself: why is 'global warming' a liberal vs. conservative issue?-Just as an aside, here is the famous article for global cooling from Newsweek. 1975:--http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf


> > > http://www.physorg.com/news185780169.html
> 
> Well, I can't speak for cardiology, but suffice it to say that I doubt Brin and Page would ever have thought to find their search algorithm in an old economics paper from 1941, heh. -Our medical meetings were always full of fresh material with questions from the floor.-In medicine for researchers is "Medline", but when I knw it it never went back far enough to search the oldest stuff.


> > http://www.physorg.com/news185780169.html
> > 
> > You'll find the last paragraph especially enlightening as this would completely democratize the process of peer review. 
> 
> It always amazes me when I read a 'new' medical finding that we 'knew' in the 1960's in cardiology. And your article above concerns an idea from 1941!!-Well, I can't speak for cardiology, but suffice it to say that I doubt Brin and Page would ever have thought to find their search algorithm in an old economics paper from 1941, heh. -Just read the editor's letter in my ACM journal, and heh, apparently there's a bit of a fuss in Computer Science regarding Peer Review. Publishing in CS is conference-driven as opposed to journal-driven. This means that the pressure isn't to say, make it into a journal like Nature, but to make it to the biggest name conferences. Personally, I prefer the conference approach--your publishing is your presentation, and people can tear into it right away. But those in my profession want it otherwise. Sigh. (Publication in computer science takes 4-5x as long as any other discipline.)


> http://www.physorg.com/news185780169.html
> 
> You'll find the last paragraph especially enlightening as this would completely democratize the process of peer review. -It always amazes me when I read a 'new' medical finding that we 'knew' in the 1960's in cardiology. And your article above concerns an idea from 1941!!

An even better essay on how peer review and government control of science grants is a dangerous setup to create conspiracy and fraud in science: 
> > 
> > 
> > http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/22/jerry-ravetz-part-2-answer-and-explanation-to-my-... 
> Again by Jerry Ravitz, a very clear-thinking philosopher of science. Thought provoking. Matt, please read it though. You were born during all this, raised by it and I don't think you appreciate the dangers.-http://www.physorg.com/news185780169.html-You'll find the last paragraph especially enlightening as this would completely democratize the process of peer review. At the moment I'm contemplating designing just such a website, allowing all people to join but differentiating between credentialed and lay reviewers. I like the idea because it would drastically speed up the process, and in your own case, would make the entire peer review process public, open, and visible. Everyone's happy except Nature and Science, heh. -Haven't read your article yet but I bookmarked it. Have to finish a programming project.

An even better essay on how peer review and government control of science grants is a dangerous setup to create conspiracy and fraud in science: 
> 
> 
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/22/jerry-ravetz-part-2-answer-and-explanation-to-my-... by Jerry Ravitz, a very clear-thinking philosopher of science. Thought provoking. Matt, please read it though. You were born during all this, raised by it and I don't think you appreciate the dangers.


> > My point, is that even if an active conspiracy works against a theory or an idea, on a long enough timeline--such a conspiracy can never hold if the weight of the explanation is TRULY powerful. Peer review can fail, but a simple appearance on TV was enough to take a theory, advance it, and make it the center stage in an entire field of study. 
> > 
> > This is what I mean when I say that I don't think the system is broken.
> 
> Immediate developments in the climate gate scandal are making your point:
> 
> A math study from Israel: 
> 
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/14/new-paper-on/#more-16426
> 
> And Phil Jones from CRU at East Anglia:
> 
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/14/phil-jones-momentous-qa-with-bbc-reopens-the-scie... 
> However, how much money has been spent on phony grants and how much time wasted in this illgotten pursuit. How about cap-and-trade and capitalists making money from the sky-is-falling hysteria. Yes the truth is dragging itself out under the weight of the phoniness started by the hacked emails. What if they were never hacked. Must we rely on one good honest person to appear to oversome a peer review system that asks for conspiracy. Human nature is to sin if you can get away with it. Ronald Reagan: "Trust, but verify".-The nature of human nature doesn't allow conspiracies to be held for long. Sooner or later the dams burst--even more so in science where a great deal of fame is bestowed upon someone who overturns a long-held paradigm. In the end, Adam Smith turns out right again: Self-Interest wins. -How much money were spent on phony grants in Linear B? Fifty years of scientists were forced to adopt a bad perspective that was a dead end. Things like this always happen, and--will happen again. -As for the quip about human nature being one of sinning when they can get away with it, that's a gross over-generalization. Look at the NYC power outage back in '03, '04. It turned into a gigantic block party, with an incredibly low crime rate. If you look for evil, you shall find it.


> > My point, is that even if an active conspiracy works against a theory or an idea, on a long enough timeline--such a conspiracy can never hold if the weight of the explanation is TRULY powerful. Peer review can fail, but a simple appearance on TV was enough to take a theory, advance it, and make it the center stage in an entire field of study. 
> > 
> > This is what I mean when I say that I don't think the system is broken.
> 
> Immediate developments in the climate gate scandal are making your point:
> 
> A math study from Israel: 
> 
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/14/new-paper-on/#more-16426
> 
> And Phil Jones from CRU at East Anglia:
> 
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/14/phil-jones-momentous-qa-with-bbc-reopens-the-scie... 
> However, how much money has been spent on phony grants and how much time wasted in this illgotten pursuit. How about cap-and-trade and capitalists making money from the sky-is-falling hysteria. Yes the truth is dragging itself out under the weight of the phoniness started by the hacked emails. What if they were never hacked. Must we rely on one good honest person to appear to oversome a peer review system that asks for conspiracy. Human nature is to sin if you can get away with it. Ronald Reagan: "Trust, but verify".


> > > If the system at large wasn't working the way it was supposed to, you wouldn't have any fodder for "climategate." The information is coming out, isn't it? As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing to be concerned about here.
> > 
> > That's not an answer. Unless someone had squealed, leaking the emails, the skeptics would still be ranting something is wrong; instead the whole edifice is falling apart. Without the leak, where are we? Sorry, don't buy your offhandedness.
> 
> See my post discussing Linear B.-See my refutation of your post


> My point, is that even if an active conspiracy works against a theory or an idea, on a long enough timeline--such a conspiracy can never hold if the weight of the explanation is TRULY powerful. Peer review can fail, but a simple appearance on TV was enough to take a theory, advance it, and make it the center stage in an entire field of study. 
> 
> This is what I mean when I say that I don't think the system is broken.-Immediate developments in the climate gate scandal are making your point:-A math study from Israel: -http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/14/new-paper-on/#more-16426-And Phil Jones from CRU at East Anglia:-http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/14/phil-jones-momentous-qa-with-bbc-reopens-the-science-is-settled-issues/#more-16418-However, how much money has been spent on phony grants and how much time wasted in this illgotten pursuit. How about cap-and-trade and capitalists making money from the sky-is-falling hysteria. Yes the truth is dragging itself out under the weight of the phoniness started by the hacked emails. What if they were never hacked. Must we rely on one good honest person to appear to oversome a peer review system that asks for conspiracy. Human nature is to sin if you can get away with it. Ronald Reagan: "Trust, but verify".


> > If the system at large wasn't working the way it was supposed to, you wouldn't have any fodder for "climategate." The information is coming out, isn't it? As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing to be concerned about here.
> 
> That's not an answer. Unless someone had squealed, leaking the emails, the skeptics would still be ranting something is wrong; instead the whole edifice is falling apart. Without the leak, where are we? Sorry, don't buy your offhandedness.-See my post discussing Linear B.


> If the system at large wasn't working the way it was supposed to, you wouldn't have any fodder for "climategate." The information is coming out, isn't it? As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing to be concerned about here.-That's not an answer. Unless someone had squealed, leaking the emails, the skeptics would still be ranting something is wrong; instead the whole edifice is falling apart. Without the leak, where are we? Sorry, don't buy your offhandedness.


> > I agree that the entire process should be transparent to the public, but I don't see *any* reason that the machine is so broken that it doesn't work.
> 
> But it didn't work in climate science. How do you prove transparency is present?-If the system at large wasn't working the way it was supposed to, you wouldn't have any fodder for "climategate." The information is coming out, isn't it? As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing to be concerned about here.


> I agree that the entire process should be transparent to the public, but I don't see *any* reason that the machine is so broken that it doesn't work.-But it didn't work in climate science. How do you prove transparency is present?


> Your point about your specialty coincides with my own view that I tend to prefer surgeons to internal medicine... surgeons can actually FIX something. In this I'M jaded by having worked at a teaching hospital and sometime getting to listen in on differentials. No offense, but it often seems like doctors only have a slightly better idea of what's going on than the patient. -Surgeons only think they fix things. I'm an internist at heart, and we always point out to them where and what to fix. ) They are mainly hand skills, not brain skills.
 
> 
> All cardiologists have to agree on certain explanations and on a central framework, yes? Are you suggesting that they always agree? If two cardiologists disagree on a diagnosis, what method can you use in order to definitively prove one correct?-Again: an EKG interpretation, a CAT scan of ventricular volume, a cath for flow rates, an ultra-sound, etc. Technical hard science. You are right however, lots of it is Arthur Conan Doyle, which is why Holmes is such fun and a great story to tell.-> 
> My point about peer review is still something to consider; you'll *never* get rid of bias. -Then why enter a large dose of it by committies of people who think the same? In a sense Kuhn warned of this.