Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (75711)	12/1/2009 9:43:31 AM
From: JakeStraw	3 Recommendations Respond to of 224755

Climategate: Follow the Money online.wsj.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (75711)	12/1/2009 11:15:35 AM
From: tonto	Respond to of 224755

When opinions are given instead of fact, the world does not benefit. This gentleman presented some worthwhile thoughts: As a retired scientist, I can say that I am not shocked or surprised by any of the matters discussed in the emails. For the most part, these folks are just arguing about the science. But there are many issues beyond the science that arise when one reads these emails that many non-scientists might well find disturbing. For example, we find the data is not as iron clad as the scientists would have us believe. These scientists actively refuse FOI requests in order to cover up this fact. Furthermore, we get the very strong impression that many of them are less interested in hard science and more interested in the impression the data ultimately presents. Some readers will conclude that perhaps we need to wait just a bit. After all, if we are to believe these scientists,(and perhaps we should) we are discussing nothing less than the fate of the earth. And then we read these emails...and we have to conclude with these non-scientist observers that we really have to see the original data. And clearly, given that almost all science is paid for by the citizens, can't we reasonably ask why the citizens should not have access to the real data completely uncontaminated by the "opinions" of the authors? Consider just how many jpegs would be equivalent to the volume of material that was hacked! Not very many. Have them post it all on Google. People are arguing about the volume but I submit that for all of science it would be a drop in the bucket. Another idea comes to mind which might reduce some of this in-fighting. Mind you this is a very radical thought but this is very serious business and we badly need to get it under control I believe this mess really reflects the long standing need for a major shift in "science publishing" so that "data" and "opinion" are very clearly separated. I believe, there should be one group of journals which deals only with data--real data. It should be very, very difficult to get a paper into one of these "data" journals. The description of exactly how the data was acquired should be exceedingly detailed. If the data is in fact flawed, it should be possible to reproduce the data to the extent that the flaw in logic or procedure would be apparent. The greatest error a scientist could make should be any attempt to present his "data" as something it is not. Of course, the devil is always in the details and, for example, it is often the case that scientists attempt(for all sorts of reasons) to make a case by measuring only part of a system. A primary "data" journal cannot stop this practice but it can make it much more obvious that the data is only partial. Many limitations are, of course, very real as in the case of instruments which simply won't produce data above/below a certain wavelength. Such limitations should be very carefully denoted as a part of the data. Given the power of today's search engines, we should never have to worry about overlooking data. A careful search should produce it all. There should be another group of journals that I would consider "secondary" that deal only with peoples opinions drawn on the "data" in the primary journals. There might be a "hold" of several months that allowed the scientists who acquired the "data" to be the first to make conclusions based on the new "data". The problem is that "conclusions" are always opinions. Two different people can often reach very different conclusions based on the same data. We need a way to separate the facts and the opinions. Using the system proposed here, popular publications would know if a scientific publication was "fact" or "opinion". Their articles could be clearly based on "fact" or on "opinion". Currently even the "best" journals are not immune to politics. The tone of these emails clearly shows exactly how the scientists are really politicians. This is no surprise because they are just people. There is always a reason to take a particular stand. Such tendencies should not be allowed to influence data. After all the "data" is what we citizens are paying for. Politics should influence only the "opinions" This is a very serious issue. We are not discussing something arcane like the reality of dark energy. If global warming is real this is well beyond serious. Perhaps it is time to make some fundamental changes.