Difference between revisions of "2008-10-30 Climate Science/analysis"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (Reverted edits by 76.83.119.147 (Talk) to last version by Woozle) |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | ==Preliminary Conclusions== | |
| + | I don't think he's making a good case against GW methodology. He makes a good case that science in general is in trouble, but his attempt to show that climate science in particular has been corrupted -- and in the particular direction he suggests -- is much sketchier; there is at ''least'' as much evidence of attempts to corrupt it in the opposite (i.e. GW-skeptical) direction. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The appeal of his case seems primarily based on the "fear" tactics that he claims GW proponents are using: in his case, fear that science has become corrupted, fear of being manipulated and controlled by bureaucrats, fear of looking stupid for being taken in by political dogma (Lincoln quote)... | ||
| + | |||
| + | If the papers are as biased as he says they are, why doesn't he take them on individually? Surely there is a process for criticizing published scientific papers? (Did he send any "letters to the editor" to the journals in question, when the papers were originally published? If so, what were the responses?) | ||
| + | |||
| + | If the various organizations he attacks are as corrupted as he claims, why not attack them head-on for the flaws in their process? Have they been approached with these criticisms and given a chance to respond? Has the mainstream climate science community responded at all? | ||
| + | |||
| + | --[[User:Woozle|Woozle]] 01:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
==Argument== | ==Argument== | ||