Friday, December 04, 2009
Are you a good science or a bad science?
The global warming hacking incident reminds me of the part in the "Wizard of Oz" where Toto pulls the curtain back. "Pay no attention to the fraud behind the curtain. The great and powerful science has spoken!" Or maybe the witch's question; "But what kind of science are you? Are you a good science, or a bad science?" Let's investigate.
Real science follows the data. This science says "the data must be wrong", and comes up with "tricks" to "hide the decline".
Real science says "I've reached this conclusion, based on this data, and these methods", and invites anyone and everyone to try and redo the work. This is how cold fusion was discovered to be experimental error. This science destroys the raw data, and colludes to prevent disclosure of either data or methods. Besides CRU's destruction of data, NASA has cooked their numbers three different times, refusing to explain their reasoning or methods any of those times.
Real science is open to all comers, with a peer review process to make sure that good science is done. This science actively works to shut out any opposing views, sabotaging the process to ensure those views won't get a peer review--so they can say "well, that's not peer reviewed", and dismiss it--and takes unseemly joy at the death of another scientist who is seen as "the enemy".
This "science" looks more like a religion than a science. If AGW is real, then they've dealt that cause a severe blow. As Jon Stewart said (paraphrased) "If it important, don't cut corners! Do it right." This science's practitioners have become the new inquisition; they've become anti-science church they love to disparage. It's not a pretty sight.
If AGW is real, the best thing that could happen would be for these scientists to get back to the scientific method, publish their data and methods, and challenge--even dare--the world to prove them wrong. If they are so sure of their conclusions, what do they have to fear? Why are they fighting so hard to keep it all secret?
Real science follows the data. This science says "the data must be wrong", and comes up with "tricks" to "hide the decline".
Real science says "I've reached this conclusion, based on this data, and these methods", and invites anyone and everyone to try and redo the work. This is how cold fusion was discovered to be experimental error. This science destroys the raw data, and colludes to prevent disclosure of either data or methods. Besides CRU's destruction of data, NASA has cooked their numbers three different times, refusing to explain their reasoning or methods any of those times.
Real science is open to all comers, with a peer review process to make sure that good science is done. This science actively works to shut out any opposing views, sabotaging the process to ensure those views won't get a peer review--so they can say "well, that's not peer reviewed", and dismiss it--and takes unseemly joy at the death of another scientist who is seen as "the enemy".
This "science" looks more like a religion than a science. If AGW is real, then they've dealt that cause a severe blow. As Jon Stewart said (paraphrased) "If it important, don't cut corners! Do it right." This science's practitioners have become the new inquisition; they've become anti-science church they love to disparage. It's not a pretty sight.
If AGW is real, the best thing that could happen would be for these scientists to get back to the scientific method, publish their data and methods, and challenge--even dare--the world to prove them wrong. If they are so sure of their conclusions, what do they have to fear? Why are they fighting so hard to keep it all secret?
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
