Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 13th Dec 2016 21:53 UTC
In the News

Alarmed that decades of crucial climate measurements could vanish under a hostile Trump administration, scientists have begun a feverish attempt to copy reams of government data onto independent servers in hopes of safeguarding it from any political interference.

There's a war going on. A war waged by religious extremists (of at least two major world religions), the extreme right, and fossil fuel-funded politicians, against the very foundations of our secular, post-Enlightenment, post-scientific revolution society. You think I'm exaggerating? I wish. Extreme right websites are asking their readers to pick up arms against scientists. That's where we are.

Religious extremists, the extreme right, and fossil fuel-funded politicians know all too well that science, secularism, and a clear, non-negotiable separation between church and state are grave threats to their continued existence. We - as a species - have come a long way these past few hundred years, but it feels like today, with the all-out attack on science by these deplorable parts of our society, we are regressing backwards into the dark ages.

Science is the only foundation of progress. Any who seek to erode this foundation are the enemy of the Enlightenment - mankind's greatest invention. Pick your side carefully.

Thread beginning with comment 638384
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
cade
Member since:
2009-02-28

Something did happen.

Physicists like Professor Muller decided to make transparent their climate raw data and any associated manipulations of the raw data (i.e. the formulae) public so that anybody can back track and confirm the findings. This was because of Muller's observation that applying Mann's statistical analysis techniques to stochastic (Monte-Carlo) data causes the generation of a "hockey-stick" morphology in the data which implied an artifact in Mann's statistical technique(s). This cannot be refuted, it is an valid empirical observation. No amount of usage of terms such as "concensus", "general acceptance", "prevailing view" can have an impact on changing the result of this observation. Science is not about concensus, it concerns the explanation of experimental results.

As a person with a bachelor and PhD degrees in an applied science discipline, I was not happy with the unambiguous fraud evidenced during my own perusal of the climate-gate emails back in 2009. I do not believe that scientists begin life with a fraudulent agenda, since we are initially trained to search for the "truth". However, pressures from the grant-system, political/social agendas, tunnel-vision (i.e. getting too close) effect, love-hate relationship with a theory (i.e. pushing a theory/aspect for a long while and then realizing that possibly that theory/aspect is not very useful; which, to me, is still a result be it a "null" result) can make the best of us a bit wayward.

Reply Parent Score: 2

kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

https://skepticalscience.com/Muller-Misinformation-1-confusing-Mikes...

https://skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

You are more than welcome to retread old ground that has been counter debunked.

Reply Parent Score: 6

unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

https://skepticalscience.com/Muller-Misinformation-1-confusing-Mikes...

https://skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

You are more than welcome to retread old ground that has been counter debunked.


Skeptical Science doesn't understand irony. It is totally devoid of scepticism. The author is an activist employed by the University of Queensland.

Reply Parent Score: 2