PatsFanInVa

Doing a lot of work to turn differences of editorial opinion into something"gate".

This stuff can only carry much weight with people who use e-mail only to discuss who just got married, who's about to get married, who just had a baby, and where we're all getting together for happy hour.

I guess it's also persuasive if "to publish or not to publish" (and how one presents data) are not part of one's workload.

Scientists who do original research and submit papers for publication face such dilemmas all the time. Many engineers don't. So I suppose that sort of outside-in viewpoint can be very handy to sway the great unwashed with little or no experience in professional publication cycles.

PFnV

patsfan13

People with a technical background who are aware of how science is supposed to be done know that data is revealed so others can check work and prove the null hypothesis. Data is not excluded to produce a predetermined outcome. When models make predictions and those predictions are shown to be wrong based on empirical measurements the models are rejected and work begins on models that can predict future behavior.

All these thing have not happened in this case.


Patters speaking of blogs there are emails in the climate gate 2 release where the lead correspondent from BBC works with the CRU to prevent fair reporting of issues surrounding the MMGW debate.....

__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."

Patters

You seem to assume that one group of scientists, those who are convinced that there is mmgw, does not have any sort of process to check exactly what you're talking about, specifically the influence of one's morals and values. You assume mmgw scientists are opportunists. You make the opposite assumption with the deniers. But, why assume believers are so much more corrupt? What it is about believing in mmgw that you find inherently corrupt? Do you think all those scientists are liars, incompetent, opportunists, or politicians? What is this arrogance on the part of deniers to accord such base qualities to so large a group of scientists?

Also, you assume that you are able to avoid doing what you're accusing the mmgw scientists of doing. But, your view is riddled with conservative politics. It aligns completely with rigid right-wing. My view on the issue does not depend on a belief in mmgw. I think that the belief in global warming is good for the environment because it is leading to more environmentally friendly policies. Regardless of whether global warming is fact or not does not matter to me, though I think the evidence is strong. The issue to me is, How do we protect our beautiful world when so many people don't seem to care. It seems clear that if we invest in mmgw friendly policies, our natural environment will only improve.

On what moral grounds does one oppose attempts to make the air and water cleaner?

PatsFanInVa

So basically you're saying that you feel that e-mails having to do with the publication process fulfill other purposes as well.

IOW, if I am deciding whether an article is appropriate for my publication, I will send an e-mail stating the reasons, in my opinion, that it's not.

My reasons may reflect -- for example -- the point of view that my journal is quite conservative and careful to not appear to have "made up its mind" on the matter, despite the huge preponderance of evidence supporting human contributions to global warming.

In writing for publication, I may say "the vast majority of studies and climatologists support the hypothesis that humans contribute to global warming."

This may be an objectively true statement, yet an editor can decide it is not right for the publication in question based on disagreement in tone.

So, he would either send you a request to revise your tone, or send you a rejection note. If he's writing to someone within his organization, he'd weigh in the same way, though he might be overruled.

As to your contention that when one data set disagrees with the prediction of a model it is scrapped, regardless of what constitutes "proof" to the contrary, how much data don't agree with the model, etc., that's bullsh1t.

If the model says the globe is warming, yet we still have a snowstorm, global warming deniers are fond of saying that this result disproves the model on its face (to choose a simple example.)

There are myriad cases in which rather than scrap everything to do with a model, scientists look for reasons the model has a glitch here and a glitch there. For example, although the globe is warming, a region might have a cold spell -- or you could have a colder 2012 than 2011. This does nothing to reverse the overall trend line which -- as even the deniers finally admitted -- is a global warming trend.

I am curious -- have you ever submitted a paper of any sort for publication?

PFnV

Real World

So basically we shouldn't put much stock in the private emails of the people who's public work we're supposed to base our opinions on. Even when those private emails are about how they themselves don't think the data actually adds up. Hmmm...any else find that odd, outside of me?

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

patsfan13

Actually they aren't private emails they are done on government paid email accounts & servers ie work accounts. There was no expectation of privacy on any work computer I have ever used.....

__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."

PatsFanInVa

It's an extensive record of very workaday back-and-forths, which can be cherry-picked to find things that look horribly incriminating if you're of a mind to look at them as horribly incriminating.

For example, in one exchange (above) an author is told his tone is too rah-rah, and that they want to avoid the perception of advocacy.

This becomes the Judgment of the Universe that the author is horribly biased and is incapable of doing science.

See each e-mail for what it is, a record of the million issues that come up in the course of any such endeavor, and what look like slam-dunk disqualifiers if you're already biased to disqualify, look like e-mails in the course of work issues.

What started the righties frothing about "climategate" was a description of a particular choice of graph depiction.

These questions arise in lots of publications, scientific or otherwise. Did they make up the data? No. Did they present the data in a valid way? Yes. But if we have an e-mail saying that the author prefers one method over the other, then by God the data are flawed.

PFnV

wistahpatsfan

It cracks me how neocons are so demanding of absolute and unanimous scientific proof of assertions by the scientific community. But when their talking point authors throw out something like "Iran is a threat to the US", "Iraq has WMDs that will kill us all" or "Eric holder admits to lying about his role in the murder of border guards"...well, they don't need as much evidence, do they?

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The Brandon Five

Amazing how all the streets in your town are one way.

So the MMGW crowd don't make their living off MMGW?

The Brandon Five

In some cases, yes. That's where the FOI fight began. People asked for the data used. It would suddenly go "missing".

No, and many of them knew it and said so. That's why the emails are important.

I guess the science wasn't so settled after all. I mean, why any discussion? Isn't the whole thing a slam dunk?