tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5939543443166847471.post5049598755091908423..comments2023-09-29T01:48:26.874-07:00Comments on Scott in Tempe: Some idle thoughts on global warmingtempe turleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00906350838729139212noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5939543443166847471.post-49713328110703664072009-11-22T21:41:11.900-07:002009-11-22T21:41:11.900-07:00Davey, I completely agree. Ironically, this is on...Davey, I completely agree. Ironically, this is one of the articles my denier friend had posted which started the debate. I don't see how this article could convince anyone global warming is a hoax unless you came into it wanting to be convinced in that direction. But it does show how political this issue is and how even scientists are human just like the rest of us and subjected to those political winds.tempe turleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00906350838729139212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5939543443166847471.post-3871109619174276472009-11-22T11:59:35.610-07:002009-11-22T11:59:35.610-07:00Hi Scott, I wonder if you caught this article in t...Hi Scott, I wonder if you caught this article in the Times on Friday. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?_r=1&bl<br /><br />I thought it was interesting for a couple of reasons. Just reading the highlights of the leaked emails doesn't convince me that there is a conspiracy but it certainly raises questions about the reliability of the scientific consensus. I can't comment on global warming because I haven't ever read a single thing on it, so I rely on the scientific consensus but I also am interested in the politics behind "science" and academic journals and I think these emails highlight how unscientific science is in a lot of ways. The purists will argue that the scientific method is reliable even though system is full of imperfect people, I take the point of view that imperfect people create imperfect results especially in increasingly complex matters. <br /><br />I heard an interview on NPR where the science guy (Neil Conan?) brought in a lady from an early reading program and a child development specialist from a university. He was surprised when they started yelling at each other. He criticized her for not having research that her program was effective and she countered that any research that she funded would have been automatically suspect. He responded that "science doesn't work that way" and that he would not criticize research just because the funding source was vested in the outcome. OF course the professor was crazy and was using "science" as a weapon against crazies. Research by pharmaceutical companies and tobacco companies and anywhere else always suspect, "science" is seems is not immune from greed.<br /><br />The point is that I don't discount deniers for the same reason I believe the consensus, I just don't know and I'm not afraid to admit it. I neither "believe" not "disbelieve" in global warming, what I do know is that science is really good at correcting itself over time and that it has been a largely worthwhile effort despite the imperfection (read:humans) inherent in the system. <br /><br />It comes as no surprise to me that some scientists are conspiring to block the publication of papers that challenge their own research, this is not new, all I'm saying is that as in your point when people are not willing to read research then they have to rely on political winds to make decisions, which is always bad.Daveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00318410719611737009noreply@blogger.com