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 : Manmade Global Warming, A hoax? A Scam? or a Doomsday Cult? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (4129)	8/28/2014 1:33:17 PM
From: sense	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4326

"this is how science has almost always been done"... Horse manure. I point out an obvious instance of purposeful bias... fraud... and you say "that's how science has always been done" ? That is completely untrue... which is not me saying that bias (or fraud) are recent inventions... but, note, the logic of your obvious apology for the SYSTEMIC fraud being conducted in global warming "research" is telling in itself. Yours advocates the practice of a bait and switch... between your offered example of the need for and implementation of systemic efforts to combat the occurrence of bias... and systemic efforts to enable bias and suppress honest analysis. You point out that other branches of science have had to, and have learned to deal with the fact of bias existing in analysis of data... by adopting methods that operate to the keep things honest. You see the same sorts of tools being used in applied science... so, for instance, in geology, where there is often money riding on the values obtained in the results of ore sample assays... and thus a history of a tendency of those conducting them to "make things up" to enable fraud in trading stocks... you see a couple of things being required to ensure the honesty of results being reported: One is the required use of independent labs in doing the testing... another is the random insertion of known "blanks" intended to test the accuracy of the analysis of the independent labs. Yours points out the same logic is applied in order to reduce bias in other aspects of "big science"... But, then, after first denying there is a problem in global warming research, while addressing how other branches of science deal with bias... you claim "The global warming community is still very young and they have not learned these lessons" ? So, bias is a problem... and they're not using tools to prevent bias and fraud... Then, "They will and eventually they'll begin doing real science". So, they are KNOWINGLY doing work that "is not real science"... And, "until then, I think it's fair to blame their crap on their incompetence instead of fraud or intent". In other words... you posted a number of proofs supporting and validating aspects of my argument... and then claim they should be interpreted as meaning the opposite of what they do... to be polite ? Bottom line... the "science" of global warming is science fraud... by definition. There is nothing in your response which gets close to validating that "it's fair to blame their crap on their incompetence instead of fraud or intent"... Yours, in arriving at awareness of error based in "incompetence instead of fraud or intent"... still requires, first, acknowledging that both the process and its products are ERROR... not to be relied upon... imposing an obvious moral obligation on everyone in science to deal truthfully with the fact, and the problem. Then, making a proper determination of the difference between "incompetence versus fraud AND intent"... also requires something more, as a matter of scientific integrity, than your simple ACCEPTANCE of error that exists, paired with an overly eager willingness to dismiss its causes ? The only possible way you could determine this is NOT fraud and intent... is to choose to not look. "The global warming community is still very young and they have not learned these lessons" is not a proper excuse for others tolerating the obvious error. The problem will not fix itself... and it will not be fixed by those who are being rewarded for sustaining the bias they have... that, also, suggesting, as is easily proven, that the bias that exists is not based in rational beliefs at all, rather than politics and money... Analysis of the methods and the results... proves the work being done is not "science". Analysis focused on the methods and the results... proving the error... doesn't begin to address the motives. I suggest you should look at the facts relevant to the case... rather than others... in addressing motive.