

Anti-AGW is pro-science, not anti-science - jacoblyles
http://patrissimo.livejournal.com/1365406.html

======
jgrahamc
To my mind when you start by framing the debate as anti-X, pro-Y you've
already failed.

------
acqq
Anti-AGW is absolutely anti-science and that can be proved by their target
group. Their base target is people who don't know enough, a few more educated
people but on margins and finally the people with direct interest in keeping
the consumption as is. They don't "point to red flags" in a sensible way, they
make immense noise targeted to the ignorant masses, and it works -- in keeping
the world not changing. Which can't end good, no matter what people who want
to close their eyes hope.

------
jgrahamc
_The whole CRU thing, which revealed total abuse of data (complete lack of
data audit trail and so many "corrections" that they could have found the Book
of Mormon in Shakespeare) is a great example._

It did reveal things like that, but it didn't reveal actual faults in the
science.

~~~
teilo
He did not say that it did.

~~~
jgrahamc
Of course, you are correct. But the problem with this article is that instead
of digging into the science and actually criticizing it and finding mistakes,
these people create an impression of the science being faulty by bringing up
details that are not scientific.

The CRU thing is a case in point. If you look at all the fuss about the emails
and look at the science, you'll find that the science doesn't appear to have
changed, just the impression of the scientists.

So folk like this make a big noise about nothing of significance.

~~~
teilo
>folk like this make a big noise about nothing of significance.

It is not "nothing of significance" that CRU could not reproduce their own
results because they destroyed their intermediate data and failed to document
how they produced it. His criticism on this point is spot-on. What happened
with CRU is a travesty, even though, as you say, the underlying science did
not change. The people who should be the most vocal about the CRU mess are
those scientists who have concluded that AGW is real. But instead, the
response is, over and over, "This is no big deal. Move along." In so doing
they have only increased the suspicion of the skeptics, and added fuel to the
fire of the deniers.

And so what you say of "these people" actually applies to those he criticizes.
Scientists do science. When they do politics and public relations instead of
science, they do it badly. When critics arise, what they _should_ do in answer
the critics with science. But when they answer with dogma and PR spin, they,
to use your words, "create an impression of the science being faulty by
bringing up details that are not scientific."

The science isn't popular? Sorry, but that's too bad. It's not the job of
scientists to popularize and defend their data and conclusions with anything
but more science. Stick to the science. The truth will out.

------
teilo
This is an excellent non-hysterical article, that _both sides_ in the debate
need to take to heart.

