• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why do laypersons have such arrogance when denying human-caused climate change?

[h=1]No, Santer et al. have not refuted Scott Pruitt[/h]Guest essay by Leo Goldstein The MSM is actively promoting a new piece of dubious “climate science”: the article Tropospheric Warming Over The Past Two Decades doi:10.1038/s41598-017-02520-7, https://archive.is/EOXfw by B. Santer et al., published in Nature Scientific Reports on May 24. For well-known reasons, Santer et al decided to debate not scientists, but Scott Pruitt, the new…
Continue reading →
 
Dilbert 1, Scientists 0.

By Ross McKitrick Click image for the full comic A communications group at Yale University has put out a video that seems to be a rebuttal to a Dilbert cartoon by Scott Adams poking fun at climate scientists and their misplaced confidence in models. The video is full of impressive-looking scientists talking about charts and…
Continue reading →

. . . So how did the video do refuting Scott Adams’ cartoon? He joked that scientists warning of catastrophe invoke the authority of observational data when they are really making claims based on models. Check. He joked that they ignore on a post hoc basis the models that don’t look right to them. Check. He joked that their views presuppose the validity of models that reasonable people could doubt. Check. And he joked that to question any of this will lead to derision and the accusation of being a science denier. Check. In other words, the Yale video sought to rebut Adams’ cartoon and ended up being a documentary version of it.

 
Yikes!

“It’s unfortunate that openness and transparency facilitate science”

Posted on 04 Jun 17 by GEOFF CHAMBERS • 24 Comments
This article in the Times Higher Education calls for “an open data adjudicator to combat ‘disinformation.’” Stephan Lewandowsky warns that academics can ‘lose control’ of their data and see it used as ‘political propaganda’ By John Elmes Twitter: @JElmes_THE June 2, 2017 Independent national bodies should be set up to adjudicate on how much . . . .

Independent national bodies should be set up to adjudicate on how much of the data underpinning research needs to be released to satisfy scholarly needs while preventing its being used as “disinformation”, a leading academic has said.Stephan Lewandowsky, professor of cognitive psychology at the University of Bristol, told the World Conference on Research Integrity that “open data is highly political” and that there is a danger that some people will use scholarly information as “noise, nonsense, commercial interests or political propaganda”, to further their own interests.“There is a difference between evidence-based science on the one hand, and political noise on the other,” he told delegates at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. It was unfortunate, he went on, that openness and transparency facilitate science but at the same time they “disproportionately also aid in the dissemination of noise and politically motivated disinformation”. . . .
 
Jack Hays said:
Yikes!

“It’s unfortunate that openness and transparency facilitate science”

Posted on 04 Jun 17 by GEOFF CHAMBERS • 24 Comments
This article in the Times Higher Education calls for “an open data adjudicator to combat ‘disinformation.’” Stephan Lewandowsky warns that academics can ‘lose control’ of their data and see it used as ‘political propaganda’ By John Elmes Twitter: @JElmes_THE June 2, 2017 Independent national bodies should be set up to adjudicate on how much . . . .

Independent national bodies should be set up to adjudicate on how much of the data underpinning research needs to be released to satisfy scholarly needs while preventing its being used as “disinformation”, a leading academic has said.Stephan Lewandowsky, professor of cognitive psychology at the University of Bristol, told the World Conference on Research Integrity that “open data is highly political” and that there is a danger that some people will use scholarly information as “noise, nonsense, commercial interests or political propaganda”, to further their own interests.“There is a difference between evidence-based science on the one hand, and political noise on the other,” he told delegates at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. It was unfortunate, he went on, that openness and transparency facilitate science but at the same time they “disproportionately also aid in the dissemination of noise and politically motivated disinformation”. . . .
Click to expand...

Who controls such data...

It just gives someone else power to exercise their agenda.

The authors should simply release all of their methodology and data if they wish to be trusted.
 
Bad science / Ridiculae
[h=1]Science Gone Stupid[/h]Guest post by David Middleton This is perhaps the dumbest article I’ve ever read… How to avoid the stigma of a retracted paper? Don’t call it a retraction By Martin Enserink Jun. 7, 2017 , 12:30 PM AMSTERDAM—In 2012 Richard Mann, a mathematician at the University of Leeds in the United Kingdom, received some very bad…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom