On issues like global warming and evolution, scientists need to speak up

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...123101155.html

The central lesson of Climategate is not that climate science is
corrupt. The leaked e-mails do nothing to disprove the scientific
consensus on global warming. Instead, the controversy highlights that in
a world of blogs, cable news and talk radio, scientists are poorly
equipped to communicate their knowledge and, especially, to respond when
science comes under attack.

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 14:20:06 -0600, Sam Wormley
wrote:

On issues like global warming and evolution, scientists need to speak up

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...123101155.html

The central lesson of Climategate is not that climate science is
corrupt. The leaked e-mails do nothing to disprove the scientific
consensus on global warming. Instead, the controversy highlights that in
a world of blogs, cable news and talk radio, scientists are poorly
equipped to communicate their knowledge and, especially, to respond when
science comes under attack.


Why don't they speak up, describe the lab
experiments, describe how the temperature sensor
is in a hot box out in the sun.

Describe what they want the temperature
to be, and how they manage that.

On 1/1/10 3:28 PM, I M @ good guy wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 14:20:06 -0600, Sam
wrote:

On issues like global warming and evolution, scientists need to speak up

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...123101155.html

The central lesson of Climategate is not that climate science is
corrupt. The leaked e-mails do nothing to disprove the scientific
consensus on global warming. Instead, the controversy highlights that in
a world of blogs, cable news and talk radio, scientists are poorly
equipped to communicate their knowledge and, especially, to respond when
science comes under attack.


Why don't they speak up, describe the lab
experiments, describe how the temperature sensor
is in a hot box out in the sun.


Don't be so silly!

On Jan 1, 9:20*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On issues like global warming and evolution, scientists need to speak up

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...09/12/31/AR200...

The central lesson of Climategate is not that climate science is
corrupt. The leaked e-mails do nothing to disprove the scientific
consensus on global warming. Instead, the controversy highlights that in
a world of blogs, cable news and talk radio, scientists are poorly
equipped to communicate their knowledge and, especially, to respond when
science comes under attack.

Most of us do, or used to do, science because we enjoy(ed) it. And the
ivory tower metaphor is fairly accurate but is not the whole story.
The enjoyment comes in the form of sharing discovery with one's peers
and colleagues, discussing ideas, etc. That pretty much excludes hoi
polloi from vast swathes of knowledge because of its esoteric nature,
jargon, lack of utility in some cases.

In climatology it seems the average person is able to grasp the
concepts because they are concrete and rooted in everyday experience.
So dumbing down, proffering simplistic explanation and discarding
difficult material become the order of the day, as one can see even
here on alt.g-w

The scientists now face having to engage with people who mostly
haven't as clue. The sort identified in the widely quoted paper by
Kruger, J and D. Dunning "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How
Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated
Self-Assessments" in the Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. Add in a few micrograms of testosterone and the mixture
is explosive. Science gets bombed back to the stone age.

On Jan 1, 12:20*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On issues like global warming and evolution, scientists need to speak up

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...09/12/31/AR200...

The central lesson of Climategate is not that climate science is
corrupt.

Yeah, we already knew this.

The leaked e-mails do nothing to disprove the scientific
consensus on global warming.

It doesn't disprove bigfoot either, but that doesn't mean bigfoot is
real.

Instead, the controversy highlights that in
a world of blogs, cable news and talk radio, scientists are poorly
equipped to communicate their knowledge and, especially, to respond when
science comes under attack.

We're not attacking science. We're attacking scientific fraud.

Big difference.

On Jan 1, Sam Wormley wrote:
On issues like global warming and evolution, scientists need to speak up

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...09/12/31/AR200...

The central lesson of Climategate is not that climate science is
corrupt. The leaked e-mails do nothing to disprove the scientific
consensus on global warming. Instead, the controversy
highlights that in a world of blogs, cable news and talk radio,
scientists are poorly equipped to communicate their
knowledge and, especially, to respond when
science comes under attack.

Good point.

Scientists need to better publicize their soviet
system (a/k/a Pravda), whereby anything published
requires approval by the Party, and dissenters
must be declared legally insane, then shipped
to Siberia for treatment...

--
Rich

RichD wrote:
On Jan 1, Sam Wormley wrote:

On issues like global warming and evolution, scientists need to speak up

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...09/12/31/AR200...

The central lesson of Climategate is not that climate science is
corrupt. The leaked e-mails do nothing to disprove the scientific
consensus on global warming. Instead, the controversy
highlights that in a world of blogs, cable news and talk radio,
scientists are poorly equipped to communicate their
knowledge and, especially, to respond when
science comes under attack.

Good point.

Scientists need to better publicize their soviet
system (a/k/a Pravda), whereby anything published
requires approval by the Party, and dissenters
must be declared legally insane, then shipped
to Siberia for treatment...

--
Rich

When will they admit that science is a big conpsiracy by the Marxists
who are on the government payroll?

On Jan 1, 3:20*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On issues like global warming and evolution, scientists need to speak up

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...09/12/31/AR200...

The central lesson of Climategate is not that climate science is
corrupt. The leaked e-mails do nothing to disprove the scientific
consensus on global warming. Instead, the controversy highlights that in
a world of blogs, cable news and talk radio, scientists are poorly
equipped to communicate their knowledge and, especially, to respond when
science comes under attack.

What good will it do scientists to speak up if their views are
censored/suppressed/ridiculed for political reasons by a government/
press collaboration which has purely political motivations?

=====

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an
endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." - H. L. Mencken,
"In Defense of Women", 1922

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

On Jan 1, 4:38*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 1/1/10 3:28 PM, I M @ good guy wrote:





On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 14:20:06 -0600, Sam
wrote:

On issues like global warming and evolution, scientists need to speak up

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...09/12/31/AR200....

The central lesson of Climategate is not that climate science is
corrupt. The leaked e-mails do nothing to disprove the scientific
consensus on global warming. Instead, the controversy highlights that in
a world of blogs, cable news and talk radio, scientists are poorly
equipped to communicate their knowledge and, especially, to respond when
science comes under attack.

* * * * * *Why don't they speak up, describe the lab
experiments, describe how the temperature sensor
is in a hot box out in the sun.

* *Don't be so silly!-

That's exactly what Anthony Watts and his www.surfacestations.org/
blog and a small army of volunteers has been doing, in spite of the
ridicule heaped upon him by the AGW crowd and their sycophants.

To date they have rated 948 of 1221 US surface weather stations in the
USHCN network and found that 69% have thermal biases due to vairous
errors (mostly in siting) that exceed 2° C:

Class 4 (CRN4) (error = 2C) - Artificial heating sources 10
meters.

Class 5 (CRN5) (error = 5C) - Temperature sensor located next to/
above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking
lot, or concrete surface."

....and this is in the largest network that the *IPCC* considers a
reliable source of surface temperature data!

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

On 1/1/10 6:35 PM, tadchem wrote:
On Jan 1, 4:38 pm, Sam wrote:
On 1/1/10 3:28 PM, I M @ good guy wrote:





On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 14:20:06 -0600, Sam
wrote:

On issues like global warming and evolution, scientists need to speak up

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...09/12/31/AR200...

The central lesson of Climategate is not that climate science is
corrupt. The leaked e-mails do nothing to disprove the scientific
consensus on global warming. Instead, the controversy highlights that in
a world of blogs, cable news and talk radio, scientists are poorly
equipped to communicate their knowledge and, especially, to respond when
science comes under attack.

Why don't they speak up, describe the lab
experiments, describe how the temperature sensor
is in a hot box out in the sun.

Don't be so silly!-

That's exactly what Anthony Watts and his www.surfacestations.org/
blog and a small army of volunteers has been doing, in spite of the
ridicule heaped upon him by the AGW crowd and their sycophants.

To date they have rated 948 of 1221 US surface weather stations in the
USHCN network and found that 69% have thermal biases due to vairous
errors (mostly in siting) that exceed 2° C:

Class 4 (CRN4) (error= 2C) - Artificial heating sources10
meters.

Class 5 (CRN5) (error= 5C) - Temperature sensor located next to/
above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking
lot, or concrete surface."

...and this is in the largest network that the *IPCC* considers a
reliable source of surface temperature data!

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

Would these biases be constant over many decades?