SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics of Energy

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: whitepine who wrote (14296)11/26/2009 1:47:44 PM
From: Brumar892 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) of 86356
 
Griping about whatever someone's real name is a pathetic attempt to pick an irrelevant side issue to distract from the discussion. Eric is following the playbook.

Scientific Red Flags -- By: Jonah Goldberg

By webmaster@nationalreview.com (Jonah Goldberg)

From a reader (with an academic affiliation):

To: Jonah Goldberg, John Derbyshire

I followed with interest your interchange about the recent developments concerning global warming research. I thought John's point that there will always be contrarians in any scientific discipline, and that in general it is likely that the consensus position has more validity than the
contrarian one, is a valid one. Given the recent events, though, it seems to me that we need to develop methods that can alert us to situations where the consensus position is faulty. In the case of climate research, there were numerous such clues that were available five or more years ago which should have made people look much more carefully at the consensus.

Here are some red flags in the behavior of mainstream scientists that could be used as prompts for examining more carefully the consensus position.

(1) Consistent use of ad hominem attacks toward those challenging their positions.

(2) Refusal to make data public. This has been going on in this area for some time.

(3) Refusal to engage in discussions of the actual science, on the assumption that it is too complicated for others to understand.

(4) Challenging the credentials of those challenging the consensus position.

(5) Refusal to make computer code being used to analyze the data public.

This has been particularly egregious here, and clear statements of the mathematics and statistics being employed would have allowed the conclusions to be challenged at a much earlier stage.

If one believes in the science one is doing, one should be willing to go to great lengths to engage those who challenge it or fail to understand it, and provide various explanations at various levels of technical detail, rather than attempt to discredit others.

h/t Lindybill
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext