Ends and means; or the self-immolation of scientific credibility (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

TheHeretic -> Ends and means; or the self-immolation of scientific credibility (2/29/2012 8:48:48 PM)

There is a bit too much denial in the the "denialgate" thread to try and do this there, and I'd like to see this go in the direction of the big question anyway, but the original source of the fuss is presented by that thread.

"Fake But Accurate" Science
quote:

For years, we've been lectured at by the global warming establishment about how anyone who doubts them is an enemy of science. One of them in particular, a fellow named Peter Gleick who was the chair of the American Geophysical Union's Task Force on Scientific Ethics, kept lecturing us about how much more scientific integrity the warmists have compared to us unscrupulous skeptics.

Well, now we know what the "scientific ethics" of this global warming establishment actually amounts to. It's not just that Gleick has confessed to stealing internal documents from the Heartland Institute, a think tank that supports global warming skepticism, or that he is suspected of forging another document in an attempt to defame Heartland. It's the fact that a whole section of the scientific establishment is defending Gleick on the grounds that it's OK to lie to promote their cause.

It should go without saying—it doesn't, apparently, but it should—that this is a complete inversion of genuine scientific ethics, in which there is no value higher than the truth. But that is how deeply the global warming dogma has corrupted the scientific establishment.


For anyone who might want to chime in that Gleick is going to sue for defamation at these outrageous charges, you can read his confession on Huff n Poo (of course, those who would try such a tack probably wouldn't make it this far into my post anyway, but what the hell).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/-the-origin-of-the-heartl_b_1289669.html

He is claiming that the cut and paste "memo" magically came to him, and was then verified when he committed fraud to get the emails all the memo snips were cut and pasted from. That story gets about as far past the sniff test as an occupists armpit.

If scientific ethics are merely situtational, if scientists can feel free to fake and lie, is it even still science anymore? Doesn't that make them just another faith-based system of belief, no different than hardcore fundy creationists explaining away fossils? Perhaps, as the author of the article I started with speculates, no different than a bad cop, planting evidence on the guy he "knows" is guilty?

Ends and means, in science. What say you?



Rule -> RE: Ends and means; or the self-immolation of scientific credibility (2/29/2012 8:55:06 PM)

Was his name mentioned too in an earlier thread? If so, I then got the impression that he was a hired hand laboring in the service of evil.

Carbon dioxide hasn't got anything to do with a purported heating up of Earth's climate.



Fellow -> RE: Ends and means; or the self-immolation of scientific credibility (2/29/2012 9:14:52 PM)

We are talking about university science. There are some problems that cause lot of useless noise and sometimes false information to be published. The most importantly, a leading scientist must bring in grant money or he/she will be kicked out. In order to get grants he/she must publish as much as possible. Add here politically sensitive "goldmine" for grants as the global warming business is, and you get corruption. The last is not so evident in most natural science areas. In general, the university science is ridiculously inefficient. The taxpayers generally are not aware of that.



Owner59 -> RE: Ends and means; or the self-immolation of scientific credibility (2/29/2012 9:15:23 PM)

Guess it comes down to who`s paying the scientists........academia and governments or Exxon and Shell oil......As well as the sheer ,over whelming numbers of scientists and climatologists who do thinks there`s something there compared to the few that don`t.


Just say`n.....[:D]



tweakabelle -> RE: Ends and means; or the self-immolation of scientific credibility (2/29/2012 10:02:34 PM)

Here's a free tip for you, TheHeretic:

If you want to choose grounds on which to contest climate change, leave ethics and in particular scientific or professional ethics well alone.

The history of the anti-CC mob in this area - plagiarism scientific frauds and just plain lies abound - is not something they want public attention focussed on at all. Not to mention the entire .Univ of East Anglia fiasco dreamt up by these people.

Please note that even a successful attack on the ethical standards of one, or even several individuals associated with pro-climate change side of the debate has little or no effect on the pro-CC argument.

Try instead to stick to such facts and data as you can muster. Muck-raking is no substitute for rational debate and merely invites examination of the motives of the muck-rakers.



TheHeretic -> RE: Ends and means; or the self-immolation of scientific credibility (2/29/2012 10:59:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle


Please note that even a successful attack on the ethical standards of one, or even several individuals associated with pro-climate change side of the debate has little or no effect on the pro-CC argument.




Do you really believe that very the foundation of credibility those pro-CC folk (is that the new buzz-phrase? They get discredited and changed so often, it's hardly worth keeping track.) are standing on to make their argument has nothing to do with their ability to persuade? Really? I'm quite willing to accept that you'll go right along with the ends justifying the means whenever you happen to agree with the end in question, but I have trouble believing you are that ignorant of how public opinion works.

Alinsky advised that all social ills be personalized. Congratulations. You have a new poster child, and we have his signed confession.

My main argument against the global warming cult has long been that they were far more about power and money, than about the environment. Please don't try to tell me what my position is, or how to make my case.

My tip to you, Tweakabelle, is to try and deal with what I'm saying, instead of pretending I said something you feel competent to attack.



tweakabelle -> RE: Ends and means; or the self-immolation of scientific credibility (2/29/2012 11:28:51 PM)

quote:

They get discredited and changed so often, it's hardly worth keeping track.) are standing on to make their argument has nothing to do with their ability to persuade


You might like to list the occasions where the above has happened. Provide some credible sources for your claim.

quote:

Please note that even a successful attack on the ethical standards of one, or even several individuals associated with pro-climate change side of the debate has little or no effect on the pro-CC argument.


What I was alluding to here is that the pro-CC argument is based interpretations of data. The credibility of this evidence doesn't rely on the ethical standards of one or two pro-CC spokespersons or scientists, but on the data, which has been measured by thousands of scientist all around the world acting more or less independently. So if you want to make a credible case against CC (and I'm not saying you can't) then you need to either destroy the credibility of the data, or the manner in which that data is being interpreted.

Alleging that so-and-so is devious or underhand doesn't establish anything at all against the pro-CC argument.

quote:

My main argument against the global warming cult has long been that they were far more about power and money, than about the environment


Again, have you got any credible evidence to back up this claim? I haven't seen any to date. Unless you can establish credible evidence of this apparent world wide conspiracy you're alleging, this claim has no status in the debate other than just another ideologically-inspired wild conspiracy theory and ought to be regarded as such. So produce the evidence please.

It's very easy to run around denigrating all and sundry for base political motives. Please persuade us that there is something more to your claims than that. That is to say, produce some credible evidence.



joether -> RE: Ends and means; or the self-immolation of scientific credibility (3/1/2012 12:25:00 AM)

How about this Heretic, why dont you put your money where your month is and actually DO THE EXPERIMENTS YOURSELF? That's right, you 'believe' that Climate Change is a hoax and therefore unfactual in nature. That a massive conspiracy exists that has tens of thousands of scientists interconnected in a huge attempt to decieve the world population into believing a story that is on the same level as 'Honest Republicans' and 'Unicorns'.

Of course I and everyone else that understands Climate Change and have checked in on this material know, you will NOT do this for two important reasons:

1) Any information that you obtain from these experiments that do not conform to your narrow view of reality will be discarded.

2) You will not publish your finding in complete form. You will not state how you did every step of the process so that it can be replicated and tested for accuracy. These is a reason why scientists check, recheck, and check again, on the same damn experiment: To see if what they are testing actually is factual and true. You will modify things, even in a tiny form, but that will only show that everyone else's results vary quite sharply from your own. They'll ask you to show them EXACTLY, step-by-step how you did your expirements. Sooner or later, you'll slip up on your conspiracy and be found out as a liar. Does that mean Climate Change is correct? Not at all....it simiply shows your a liar and not to be trusted in the future. But given the massive mountain of evidence collected so far, its a pretty good indication that the concept of Climate Change is indeed taking place.

Likewise, if you recieve funding for all these experiments you are running 'for the good of humanity', I'm sure you'll be more than happy to 'show the books' and properly account for every last penny? And that all the money can be verified from their sources as being 'non-anti climate change supporters' (i.e. Koch Brothers, Exxon, etc).

I think I'll take the word of tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of scientists on this subject as being right. In fact, if I REALLY wanted to do the tests myself, I'm sure they'd be happy to give me a hand in performing them. Likewise, they would be very interested to find what my conculsions are based on the data. I'm not expecting a Nobel Prize for my work. But that is the difference between you and me; your afraid of the reality. Something all the scientists have agreed on and moved to the next logical steps.

Scientists from around the world are not arguing over whether or not Climate Change is taking place. They have already decided on that and agreed its taking place. They are not arguing on the causes of that change; For they have a good understanding and agreement. They are well aware of the planet going through 'cool' and 'warm' period changes; since they are the ones that discovered the very concept for humanity in the first place. They are not arguing on what sort of things might happen as the planet warms; They have agreed it will have numerous effects on the weather, soil, planets, animals and humans. They are arguing on what exactly to do about all of this. Unfortunately, the uninformed (i.e. conservatives) in our country believe that since scientists are arguing still, the matter on whether Climate Change is true or not is not settled. They believe (there is that word again....) that scientists have taken this whole concept as some sort of 'religious' concept, devoid of facts and evidence. When quite the opposite is true at current.

I suspect those few, token 'scientists' that claiim Climate Change is false are handsomely paid off by entities that would like to keep making profits by doing the very thing that is causing the rapid change in warmth to rise so quickly around the planet. Care to wager Heretic, how much scientific knowledge the average Santorum, Paul, or Romney support holds? I think I'll take NASA's understanding to that of the GOP's.



Musicmystery -> RE: Ends and means; or the self-immolation of scientific credibility (3/1/2012 2:47:16 AM)

quote:

still science anymore?


Interest in science has died quite some time ago. Facts are irrelevant. What people believe is simply true.




Kirata -> RE: Ends and means; or the self-immolation of scientific credibility (3/1/2012 3:04:06 AM)


~ FR ~

The obvious solution here is to move Gleick to a different parish.

K.



DaddySatyr -> RE: Ends and means; or the self-immolation of scientific credibility (3/1/2012 3:25:21 AM)

If I'm reading this right; you're using an example of a scientist "run amok" (even criminally) in an effort to distort the truth in the hopes of turning public opinion so that he no longer needs science to make his point?

It's something the green guys have been doing for quite some time.

It's interesting (to me) that you called them "faith-based". I think, to a large degree, you've hit the nail on the head. In the "hippie era" (late 60s-early 70s) There were a whole lot of flower people that "went back to" the religion of "Mother Earth" etc. Unfortunately, since most of them didn't "come from" there to begin with, it made it tough to "go back" so, they made some of it up, as they went along.

Now, that is not to nullify anyone's religion. They are free to believe what they wish to believe and I support that. They are not free to make up (parts of) a religion, say it's not a religion, and try and get me toi live by their tenets. I believe that's a large portion of what's going on.

I've said on these threads before that I believe we are "leaving a carbon footprint" (I think that's the "in" phrase?) but, I don't think we're destroying the planet. I've also said that if one looks at what could possibly be the motivation of some of the most prominent people on the pro side of the argument, we would see that they're making a metric shit-ton of money by scaring people into believing that the world is going to end and they have the way to stop it. That's shameful.

I'd be a lot more tempted to give their moaning and gnashing of teeth credit if they weren't getting rich from it. Someone made the point that a scientist must "publish or perish". That is and has been an absolute for about as long as "professional" science has been in existence.

Pure science is a search for the truth. Truth (IMO) should be worshipped but it should be shown to be truth, first. Any scientist worth their salt cringes when a scientist goes "off the reservation" in terms of scientific method because they know that it sets back their cause, once the mistake/distortion is exposed.

I am not up on this specific case enough to know whether or not that's what this man did but, since we appear to have a confession, I'm going to go with a zealot, looking to forward his beliefs who might very well be a true believer or who might be just chasing the almighty dollar.

The cacophony that is my "fan club" will start now ...



Peace and comfort,



Michael



Musicmystery -> RE: Ends and means; or the self-immolation of scientific credibility (3/1/2012 3:57:27 AM)

quote:


Pure science is a search for the truth. Truth (IMO) should be worshipped but it should be shown to be truth, first. Any scientist worth their salt cringes when a scientist goes "off the reservation" in terms of scientific method because they know that it sets back their cause, once the mistake/distortion is exposed.


Agreed, but (1) self-serving "science" has been the norm for a few decades and (2) forming opinions and then grasping for "evidence" to self-"validate" has become so common it doesn't even raise eyebrows anymore.



DaddySatyr -> RE: Ends and means; or the self-immolation of scientific credibility (3/1/2012 4:03:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Agreed, but (1) self-serving "science" has been the norm for a few decades and (2) forming opinions and then grasping for "evidence" to self-"validate" has become so common it doesn't even raise eyebrows anymore.


I agree with your statement also but, if I may be so bold as to "fix" it?

quote:

ORIGINAL Merged quote

forming opinions and then grasping for "evidence" to self-"validate" has become so common it doesn't even raise eyebrows or instill confidence in their credibility anymore.


I think we agree, here. I think that "scientists" that ignore actual scientific method are a danger to the very thing they're trying to "prove". That's it in a nut shell. Yes?



Peace and comfort,



Michael



Musicmystery -> RE: Ends and means; or the self-immolation of scientific credibility (3/1/2012 4:12:34 AM)

quote:



I think we agree, here. I think that "scientists" that ignore actual scientific method are a danger to the very thing they're trying to "prove". That's it in a nut shell. Yes?


Yes, but very important: additionally, people for the past few decades don't give a crap about facts. "Science" is what they choose to believe, regardless of facts or evidence; the rest is junk.



DaddySatyr -> RE: Ends and means; or the self-immolation of scientific credibility (3/1/2012 4:26:16 AM)

That settles it. We agree.

I think it's as interesting that common, every-day people spew scientific "fact" without even reasoning out the fact that they're regurgitating.

I can't think of an example but I think all of us have seen polls or surveys that state something as "fact" that is contrary to our own experience. While we may not be "expert" in that field, we certainly have some knowledge and I think the scientists, negating our experiences, is part and parcel of ignoring scientific method.

I may not be making myself clear enough.

I think in the process of our every-day living, each of us is exposed to many things. I can't accept people spewing as fact: "American people are sick and tired of hearing about scandal" when each time a new one occurs, we (as a group) eat it up.

When scientific "fact" flies in the face of what we know to be true, many of us don't even think for ourselves: "Does this sound right, based upon my experience?" I think that's one of the major ways that faux-science has taken a foothold in our society.



Peace and comfort,



Michael



Musicmystery -> RE: Ends and means; or the self-immolation of scientific credibility (3/1/2012 4:57:22 AM)

Michael,

This is actually a different matter. What's true in aggregate often defies what seems to be true on an individual level (I'm a specialist in organizational behavior). Interesting studies, many examples. Check out Peter Senge's "The Fifth Discipline" for a primer.

What I mentioned above your post is different--people actually not giving a damn that the facts/evidence dispute their beliefs.

There's a third matter, a gross misunderstanding about science, especially evidence-for vs. proof-of. Another day. Duty calls.



Exidor -> RE: Ends and means; or the self-immolation of scientific credibility (3/1/2012 5:26:02 AM)

quote:

If scientific ethics are merely situtational, if scientists can feel free to fake and lie, is it even still science anymore?


99% of what the media present as "scientists" are university professors. Which makes them grant whores, who will say anything to keep the money coming in. Pretty much like TV "personalities".

Having a university degree and/or a job with a fancy title doesn't mean they're not eaten up with the dumb-ass, dishonest, or barking mad. However, those are the ones the media will flock to, because they typically give the best sound bites.



LanceHughes -> RE: Ends and means; or the self-immolation of scientific credibility (3/1/2012 6:08:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
<snipped>
I think it's as interesting that common, every-day people spew scientific "fact" without even reasoning out the fact that they're regurgitating.

I can't think of an example but I think all of us have seen polls or surveys that state something as "fact" that is contrary to our own experience.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax  Many petitions against H2O. 




edited for quote thingies



Hillwilliam -> RE: Ends and means; or the self-immolation of scientific credibility (3/1/2012 6:31:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

Was his name mentioned too in an earlier thread? If so, I then got the impression that he was a hired hand laboring in the service of evil.

Carbon dioxide hasn't got anything to do with a purported heating up of Earth's climate.

It's nice to know that you just repealed chemical and physical properties of compounds. I, for one, will sleep better tonight because of it.[:D]



DaddySatyr -> RE: Ends and means; or the self-immolation of scientific credibility (3/1/2012 6:39:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LanceHughes

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax  Many petitions against H2O. 

edited for quote thingies


Thank you, Lance. That truly made me laugh, out loud!



Peace and comfort,



Michael



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625