[OT] How science is not done

On Aug 15, 9:45*am, Dave Typinski wrote:
" wrote:

I suggest that the scientific process is reasonably well thought out
and managed. *Much more important than whether an individual scientist
provides another scientist with some data is whether or not the
legislative decision making process is open and transparent.
snip
It is the political process that is fundamentally flawed.
Unfortunately the scientific information, data, analysis, conclusions,
plays a secondary role to the agendas of lobbyist and special interest
groups.

Absolutely.

I am arguing that if the raw data upon which scientists and
politicians base their analyses and decisions isn't made available to
the public, then legislation based on scientific evidence rests on a
weak foundation.

As you point out, the politics involved--regardless of the
availability of source data--is far more opaque.

I don't expect politicians to change. *I would, however, expect
scientists--who are, hopefully, more rational than politicians--to see
the value to the legislative process and the governed of freely
available source data.
--
Dave

Dave wrote:

I am arguing that if the raw data upon which scientists and
politicians base their analyses and decisions isn't made available to
the public, then legislation based on scientific evidence rests on a
weak foundation.

I have worked as a researcher for most of my life. I am quite
certain if a member of the public were actually serious about
understanding an issue like global warming, they could obtain the data
when it was appropriate. However, as any researcher knows, raw data
is of little use without the background and understanding of how the
data was collected, what the various errors are, etc, etc. When I am
teaching a graduate student how to make measurements, my biggest
concern is that they understand the assumptions and limitations of the
equipment and the measurements.

So, I say this: If you or anyone else is interested in really
understanding the data, understanding the issues, then the process
works like this:

The first step in understanding any research is to read the important
research papers in the field. This is what any graduate student does
and can take a year or more. Then, once up to speed on the research,
if there are questions about the data, then contacting the authors is
typically the next step. The authors would probably want to see that
an effort has been made to understand their work.

Raw data is of little use without the understanding of the reality of
it, it's a bunch of numbers...

And as I said before, the problems here are not with the science, the
problems here are with the political process. As long as lobbyists
and large corporations with hidden agenda and with ties deep into the
executive and legislative branches are calling the shots, science
takes a back seat.

The scientific process is fundamentally sound, though the work of
individual scientists may be in error. The political process is not
fundamentally sound. While you maybe pessimistic about reforming the
process, it is the political process and not the scientific process
that needs reform, openness, transparency, integrity,.,.,

If you want to understand the data, get in and do your homework, read
the papers day and night until you understand them inside and out,
until you understand the limitations and assumptions, understand where
mistakes might have been made.

This is how real science works.

Jon Isaacs

On Aug 16, 2:27*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
Wait a minute you miserable creep,you bunch of numbskulls think I am a
madman because I explain the history behind rotation of the Earth at a
rate of 4 minutes/1 degree and rotation through 360 degrees in 24
hours exactly with all the consequences of that rotation.

* *Gerald, you do exhibit the behavior of an untutored fool more often
* *than not.


The low point for our race is that a group of people have decided that
carbon dioxide levels constitute a global temperature dial to the
exclusion of all else however this reckless conclusion is merely a
symptom of 'ground zero' back in the late 17th century with the
catastrophic conclusion that the apparent motions of the
constellations around Polaris is a basis for planetary dynamics in
direct conflict with thousands of years of astronomical knowledge.

People cannot even begin to fathom the destruction that has rotted
Western civilisation from the inside as the simple but catastrophic
error has grown unchecked and unchallenged until now when modern
imaging and historical texts supporting the astronomical framework and
references for daily and orbital motions have emerged to remove this
intellectual holocaust where all planetary have have temporarily been
lost to 'sidereal time' reasoning.

Your 'sidereal time' heritage comes from the same dull and dismal
crowd that tried to destroy John Harrison and his invention ,a
miserable bunch of creeps who were forced to reward Harrison's
achievement only by edict of the King .

http://books.google.ie/books?id=8roA...emarks&f=false



* *The rotation of an imaginary longitudinal grid fixed on the surface
* *of the earth rotates 360° in 86,164.09+ seconds.

Page 90-91 explained by the inventor of chronometers,the first really
accurate watch, should be enough to obliterate any stupid reasoning
that links daily rotation through 360 degrees directly to the rotation
of constellations around Polaris but as Harrison found out,your kind
does not know how to give up even when beaten and therein lies the
holocaust built on complicity and indifference.

http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/education/...s/table02.html

The values for rotation in 4 minutes/1 degree organised around the
rotational characteristics and shape of the Earth are there for all
to see and only require an additional qualifier that they represent
rotation through 360 degrees in 24 hours,the reasoning by which the
correlation is arrived at does not support junk astronomy such as the
rotation of the constellations around Polaris.











For a point on that
* *imaginary longitudinal grid fixed on the surface of the earth to
* *line back up with the sun, requires the earth to rotate about one
* *additional degree, about 361° over the interval of 24 hours.

*Freedom is compliance.


I love that definition !!

" wrote:

Dave wrote:

I am arguing that if the raw data upon which scientists and
politicians base their analyses and decisions isn't made available to
the public, then legislation based on scientific evidence rests on a
weak foundation.

I have worked as a researcher for most of my life. I am quite
certain if a member of the public were actually serious about
understanding an issue like global warming, they could obtain the data
when it was appropriate. However, as any researcher knows, raw data
is of little use without the background and understanding of how the
data was collected, what the various errors are, etc, etc. When I am
teaching a graduate student how to make measurements, my biggest
concern is that they understand the assumptions and limitations of the
equipment and the measurements.

I do understand all that. What concerns me is the lack of real
discussion of those things in the media, among politicians, and in the
public's awareness. Climate change is still a scientific inquiry, but
only to climatologists and other equally rational people--an
unfortunately narrow cross section of society.

As such, discussion of climate change, for the largest fraction of the
people on the planet, is more of a religious crusade than a scientific
inquiry. That scares me, because their opinions--which will
ultimately affect all of us through legislation--are not based on any
scientific understanding of the matter, but upon what happens to
resonate with their preconceived notions about what is right and
wrong, what is moral and what is not.

It may not be science's duty to inform the public about anything in a
manner accessible to untrained, uneducated people. But, it would be
in everyone's best interest for science to do so--especially in the
cases of climate change research.

So, I say this: If you or anyone else is interested in really
understanding the data, understanding the issues, then the process
works like this:

The first step in understanding any research is to read the important
research papers in the field. This is what any graduate student does
and can take a year or more. Then, once up to speed on the research,
if there are questions about the data, then contacting the authors is
typically the next step. The authors would probably want to see that
an effort has been made to understand their work.

Makes perfect sense.

Raw data is of little use without the understanding of the reality of
it, it's a bunch of numbers...

Of course. I don't expect this inquiry to be something one might
accomplish in a week or month. A firm understanding would take years.

And as I said before, the problems here are not with the science, the
problems here are with the political process. As long as lobbyists
and large corporations with hidden agenda and with ties deep into the
executive and legislative branches are calling the shots, science
takes a back seat.

The scientific process is fundamentally sound, though the work of
individual scientists may be in error. The political process is not
fundamentally sound. While you maybe pessimistic about reforming the
process, it is the political process and not the scientific process
that needs reform, openness, transparency, integrity,.,.,

If you want to understand the data, get in and do your homework, read
the papers day and night until you understand them inside and out,
until you understand the limitations and assumptions, understand where
mistakes might have been made.

This is how real science works.

Well, yeah. No royal road and all that.

I've been avoiding it for years because I /do/ know how much work will
be involved. I've been hoping that someone would publish a rigorous
yet accessible explanation of the current state of our understanding
of climate change, saving me the trouble.

So, fine. I'll do it the hard way.
--
Dave

Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 01:22:52 -0400, Dave Typinski
wrote:

Heh... lots of things! With respect to the immediate topic, I don't
get how /so many/ people on both sides of the climate change debate
can feel so sure of their opinions. The scientists who've actually
done the research, sure... but folks who've never read the relevant
papers, let alone seen the source data?

Speaking for myself, my high level of confidence in my opinion is based
on two things. First, I'm trained as a scientist and I _have_ read many
primary research papers, and for the most part I understand them, even
though I'm not a climate scientist. Second, I do have faith in the
consensus value of science, and in this case there are almost no climate
scientists (and an even smaller percentage of climate scientists engaged
in active research) who doubt that AGW is both real and of significant
magnitude. The weight of that many experts combined with my own reading
of the evidence forms the basis of my opinion.

You are, unfortunately, in the minority. A minority of which, I'm
reluctant to admit, I am not a member.

I have been waiting instead for someone else to do it for me. That's
my fault. It has nothing to do with any real or imagined flaws in
sceince or politics.

It's also apparent, now, that it won't ever happen.

Thus, with a nod to Gurney Halleck, "Behold, as a wild ass in the
desert, go I forth to my work."
--
Dave

Quadibloc wrote:

On Aug 15, 11:22*pm, Dave Typinski wrote:

Heh... lots of things! *With respect to the immediate topic, I don't
get how /so many/ people on both sides of the climate change debate
can feel so sure of their opinions. *The scientists who've actually
done the research, sure... but folks who've never read the relevant
papers, let alone seen the source data?

Well, I haven't gone to Africa, and unearthed any hominid fossils with
my bare hands.

But I am very sure that evolution took place, because scientists who
deal with the life sciences are nearly unanimous in its support, while
its opponents have an obvious extraneous motivation for their view.

The situation with regards to global warming is just about as clear-
cut.

On that I find myself in strong disagreement with you. I see nothing
clear cut about climate change other than the fact that our climate
is, in fact, changing. Precisely how and why are nowhere near as
clear cut as our understanding of the evolution of species--not that
our understanding of evolution is perfect, either, but it's a lot
better than our grasp of climate phenomena.

That's my take on the matter today. As I dig deeper, I reserve the
right to change my mind.

The oil industry has funded some research that says otherwise,
and there are a few mavericks out there - just as there were
university professors who thought that telepathy and UFOs were worthy
of research. And that's about it.

The physics behind global warming isn't rocket science. Carbon dioxide
levels in the atmosphere are higher than they used to be. It doesn't
block the sunlight that warms us, but it does block the long-wave
radiation that the ground at any location sends into space at night at
that location. What comes in stays the same. What goes out is
decreased. Result: the equilibrium temperature of the Earth goes up.

Detailed climate models will tell us how much carbon dioxide from
industrial activity goes into the atmosphere - after all, the increase
that has taken place so far since the Industrial Revolution hasn't
caused any catastrophe - and how much goes into the ocean.

So news items that:

- the ocean is becoming more acidic, threatening the survival of
corals, including the Great Barrier Reef,

- large parts of the ocean are no longer accepting carbon dioxide from
the atmosphere,

- peat bogs in Siberia, and now ocean floor deposits, are, due to
higher temperature, beginning to release methane, a very potent
greenhouse gas into the atmosphere

and not simply the fact that we had a warm summer last year, or that
the carbon dioxide level is still increasing, are what make me think
that there is definitely cause for concern.

I agree: there is cause for concern--of how accurate the models are,
just what our effect on climate is, and what if anything we should do
about it while balancing social, ecological, and economic goals that
are often in direct conflict with one another. Are the models
accurate? Are we in trouble? Is it grantsmanship gone wild? Should
we start abandoning coastal cities? Ban the use of fossil fuels?
Reality is in there /somewhere/, but it's a good bet that it doesn't
lie at any of those extremes.

In the past, environmentalists have often overstated some of their
concerns. There were those who harbored sentiments such as "deep
ecology" which involved a way of thinking with which most people would
see no reason to have any sympathy.

The hole in the ozone layer, and the flourocarbon ban that resulted,
was the first indication that things finally did change, and that it
wasn't a question of crying "Wolf!" any more - industrialization had
spread so much that humanity really is capable of affecting the Earth
on a global scale.

When proof is unmistakable even to the man on the street - so that
large sacrifices, like outlawing cars and using bicycles to get around
- are politically feasible, though, it will be already too late to do
anything about the problem before very bad things happen. If there's
so much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that the Earth doesn't
radiate out by night what it gets in by day (averaged over each
individual place, I know it isn't night and day everywhere at once) it
will get warmer gradually. So there's a lag time built in to this.

So I think we should switch as much energy use as we can to other
sources. Switching to nuclear power, compared to depending on wind and
tide, is feasible politically - only a noisy minority would really
object, while avoiding nuclear would have real impacts that ordinary
people would object to. We don't have to wait until it's too late -
unless it's already too late.

Given that there are indications that it is very late indeed, which I
cited above in point form, worrying about the less-than-credible
opponents of anthropogenic global warming is a waste of precious time
that deserves to be dismissed out of hand.

Okay, your opinion is so noted--and appreciated.
--
Dave

------- AHAHAHAHA.. AHAH-AGW... or nor... hahaha --------

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...

"Androcles" wrote:
.... for every active climate researcher that has serious
reservations about AGW, there are 40-50 who don't.
Given that global warming is real (and cyclic), claiming it
is anthropogenic is the utmost stupidity.

Global warming: Insolation, precession, Earth's great white spot.
When the great white spot (Antarctica) is in summer at perihelion,
conditions are different to when it is in summer at aphelion 1000's
of years later (or earlier) as the Earth precesses. Water vapour
(cloud) is the predominant "greenhouse" gas, it reflects solar
energy to cool the planet and then rains and vanishes. Sunlight
breaks through and evaporates the ocean, creating more cloud.
That's called negative feedback and keeps the temperature
constant. Animal life on this planet has no control.
= Global warming is cyclic. See http://tinyurl.com/qxsmym =
h... [ == Animal & human) activity has no control over GW ==

"Chris L Peterson" wrote:
This is one of the typical arguments that is used by those
arguing against AGW on ideological grounds, not scientific.
The argument shows nothing except that its proponent
doesn't understand science, doesn't understand climatology,
& is unqualified to even participate in discussions about it...
h.....[except for ...
h.....[ ### AL GORE, the Filthy GREEN WHORE who ###
h.....[ ### doesn't understand science nor climatology ]###

Chris L Peterson, Cloudbait Observatory, http://www.cloudbait.com

"Androcles" wrote:
This is one of the typical arguments that is used by those
arguing for AGW on ideological grounds, not scientific.
The bigot who doesn't understand science has already stated
he is not a climate scientist but believes what he's told by
consensus.
Chris, Your opinion is worthless, if you were trained as a
scientist then you went to the same school as the Inquisition.

hanson wrote:
.... ahahahaha.... Chris, generally you are a pretty rational & level
headed dude. But your advocating of suppression of free speech
shows that the enviro turd hiding within you is hanging out its ugly
green head pretty obviously. Did you just intend to crank Andro?...
or are your scared stiff cuz === The ICE MAN COMETH ===

Now Chris, tell me (1) how much power or energy a single annual
Cyclone (Hurricane/Typhoon) carries and then compare that load
to what humankind generates for its annual power & energy needs.
=== Human activity has no influence on nor control over GW...
=== because it is so pitifully small when compared to natural
=== terrestrial and solar energy levels... AGW is a FRAUD!!
(2) Now do the same for the eruptions of all the volcanoes....
(3) Then do it for the variation of summer/winter sunshine....,
(4) Then do it for the daily marine tidal changes,
(5) Then do it for the diurnal or seasonal wind power...
(6) etc... etc...
=== Human activity has no influence nor control over GW... ====

Chris, only paranoid & malfeasant green ****s think otherwise.
They are the unemployable enviros who sponge off the public
trough... and they come from across the entire political range.

So, Chris the next question is:... How will paying Carbon taxes
with all its corrupt machinations influence AGW, besides feeding
its administrators (a portion of which is still in jail for corruption
from when California tried it in the 1990's)

Chris,... even worse, IF all industrial and transportation activities
would miraculously be turned off right NOW or all being powered
by non-CO2 emitting sources... the AGW proponent insist it will
take some 2-3 centuries, if ever, for the notorious AGW effect to
subside... What green idiocy is that, beside being a tacit admission
for/by AGWers that they are wrong and try to weasel out of their
idiot advocacy...

===== There is nothing filthier then an environmentalist ====
cuz the Green Bible http://tinyurl.com/l6fhr4 in part says:

1 "It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what people
= believe is true. -- Paul Watson, Sea Shepard/ex-Greenpeace, &...
2 "If you don't know an answer, a fact, a statistic, then .... make it
= up on the spot... for the mass-media today... the truth is irrelevant."
= -- Paul Watson in Earthforce: An Earth Warrior's Guide to Strategy
7 "No matter if the science is all phony, Climate change [provides]
= equality in the world." -- Christine Stewart, Can. Enviro Minister

=== There is NO urgency... It's all natural evolution...=== except
in the criminal, greedy, hysterical & paranoid mind of the enviros.
See link about the classification 1,2, 3 of environmentalists.

= The debate is over: Kill any & all "Cap'n Trade" schemes =
== Stop, kill and rescind any & all Carbon Tax attempts ==
=== There is nothing filthier than an environmentalist ===

So Chris, remember, it's simple. If it gets too hot, buy a bigger
AC... If it gets too cold for you buy a larger furnace... and
thanks for the laughs... ahahahaha.... ahahahanson

On Aug 16, 11:22*pm, "hanson" wrote:

So Chris, remember, it's simple. If it gets too hot, buy a bigger
AC... If it gets too cold for you buy a larger furnace... and
thanks for the laughs... ahahahaha.... ahahahanson

He who laughsons, laughs lastson? ;-)

Should the hot air generated by these threads be collected, compressed
and then flown by fleets of F16s on full afterburner to warm the
drinks bars in Eskimo football training halls in winter? Wouldn't
compensating for heat island effects on the local meteorological
stations be the work of an afternoon for any coke sniffing and
gargling student doodling on the back of a pregnancy testing kit
between visits to McLardy's and the toilet? Isn't more money spent on
cosmetics and sport than on basic science? Isn't starvation caused and
not an accident? Will fitting wide wheels and low profile tyres to my
wind-power-recharged sports car improve my pulling power with the hot
chicks at the local rest home? Will the last popemobile go over to
carbon fibre inlaid with real gold threads for that subtle but sexy
"interwoven" look? Aren't these the really fundamental questions in
the climate debate which we should *really* be addressing?

On Aug 16, 11:02*am, "Androcles"
wrote:
"Chris L Peterson" wrote in messagenews:l66g85dpedkrsb651t94god1k309q35l2o@4ax .com...



On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 01:22:52 -0400, Dave Typinski
wrote:

Heh... lots of things! *With respect to the immediate topic, I don't
get how /so many/ people on both sides of the climate change debate
can feel so sure of their opinions. *The scientists who've actually
done the research, sure... but folks who've never read the relevant
papers, let alone seen the source data?

Speaking for myself, my high level of confidence in my opinion is based
on two things. First, I'm trained as a scientist and I _have_ read many
primary research papers, and for the most part I understand them, even
though I'm not a climate scientist. Second, I do have faith in the
consensus value of science, and in this case there are almost no climate
scientists (and an even smaller percentage of climate scientists engaged
in active research) who doubt that AGW is both real and of significant
magnitude. The weight of that many experts combined with my own reading
of the evidence forms the basis of my opinion.
_________________________________________________

Tom Davidson is a scientist, you are trained ape.
No discovery has ever been made by consensus of opinion and Nature is not
a democracy anyway.
Given that global warming is real (and cyclic), claiming it is anthropogenic
is the utmost stupidity.
Your opinion is worthless, if you were trained as a scientist then you went
to the same school as the Inquisition.

A perfect of example of how little you know about science, but are
willing to pontificate about science and your own self importance.
Consensus of opinion means that the overwhelming majority of
scientists who have studied the problem have independently reached the
same conclusion. Regardless of the method, whether it is analysis of
raw data, derivation of theory or replication of observed data via
mathematics, they all reach the same conclusion. Lindzen has
credibility because he proposes mechanisms to explain the observed
data, proposes a hypothesis, tests the hypothesis in an experiment and
analyzes the results. He consistently fails, but that isn't what is
important. A "failed" experiment is just as valuable as one that
"succeeds". There is a consensus that the theory of intelligent
falling down is wrong and that gravitational theory is right, but the
consensus is wrong according your

If you think global warming is cyclical, prove it. Do a discrete
Fourier Transform on the temperature data and show us that there is
significant power at anything other than a daily and yearly periods.
Oh I forgot that would mean you would have actually do science rather
than shoot your mouth off. You and your ilk are not Galileo as you
like to portray yourself, but rather the tribunal suppressing Galileo.
Actually after a moment of thought you are just an ass braying in the
desert.

On Aug 16, 10:02*am, "Androcles"
wrote:
"Chris L Peterson" wrote in messagenews:l66g85dpedkrsb651t94god1k309q35l2o@4ax .com...

Second, I do have faith in the
consensus value of science, and in this case there are almost no climate
scientists (and an even smaller percentage of climate scientists engaged
in active research) who doubt that AGW is both real and of significant
magnitude. The weight of that many experts combined with my own reading
of the evidence forms the basis of my opinion.

No discovery has ever been made by consensus of opinion and Nature is not
a democracy anyway.

That is not the point. Nature doesn't obey scientists. But the
consensus of competent scientists is a very good way of telling real
competent scientists from cranks and crackpots.

New discoveries, of course, aren't already known and agreed on when
they're discovered. But why is a new discovery needed to explain the
effects and sources of atmospheric carbon dioxide?

John Savard