Leaks
Peter Brooks
leaks of interesting information into the public domain. Of course, as
with any information, you can't be sure it is accurate, or even that
it is more accurate than the information provided by the same
organisation directly. However, the leaks I've seen tend to have more
than just a ring of truth.
These ones, look quite interesting to me:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/6636563/University-of-East-Anglia-emails-the-most-contentious-quotes.html
Not very scientific, but I doubt that all e-mails between scientists
could, or even should be.
Dave Smith
> I'm a great fan of wikileaks, and any similar schemes to encourage
> leaks of interesting information into the public domain. Of course, as
> with any information, you can't be sure it is accurate, or even that
> it is more accurate than the information provided by the same
> organisation directly. However, the leaks I've seen tend to have more
> than just a ring of truth.
>
>
> Not very scientific, but I doubt that all e-mails between scientists
> could, or even should be.
It is highly important to consider the implications of the leaked
emails, and I hope this will be done in an unprejudiced and thorough
manner. These two statements are of interest:
https://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate
The second one, by Prof. Jones, offers an explanation of the now
notorious email which mentioned a 'trick' and 'hiding' a decline.
It seems to me that people should not leap to hasty judgement in this
case.
Dave Smith
Dave Smith
> leaks of interesting information into the public domain. Of course, as
> with any information, you can't be sure it is accurate, or even that
> it is more accurate than the information provided by the same
> organisation directly. However, the leaks I've seen tend to have more
> than just a ring of truth.
>
>
> Not very scientific, but I doubt that all e-mails between scientists
> could, or even should be.
Here's an article that attempts to present the leaks in perspective:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6944592.ece
Dave Smith
Peter Brooks
>
>
> Here's an article that attempts to present the leaks in perspective:
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6944592.ece
>
thrust of the article. However it doesn't do the argument any favours
by two mistakes:
1. It says 'statistically identical'. This is a meaningless phrase
that should be modified by 'virtually' or 'as near as dammit' or
'within accepted bounds'. The figures are not identical, they fall
within similar, generally agreed, statistical limits. The phrase
reveals a lack of understanding of the arbitrary nature of statistical
bounds - that is, it fails to understand the Bayesian approach.
2. The article, apparently deliberately, but probably in ignorance,
leads the reader to conclude that the general agreement on the
greenhouse effect is the same as an agreement that the greenhouse
effect is actually in operation. This is an important, but subtle
distinction.
These points would generally be simply carping. However, in attempting
to debunk something that is being taken (wrongly, of course) as an
indication that the science is suspect, it is very foolish, if not
outright irresponsible, to make such mistakes, because they encourage
the belief that it is special pleading in support of the thesis,
rather than objective reporting.
Dave Smith
I take your first point, but what the author means is clear, I think,
and not seriously misleading.
Would you explain your second point more fully -- I'm not sure exactly
what you mean.
Dave Smith
Peter Brooks
agreed by scientists. This is true and uncontentious.
However, when you read it in the context of the article, it appears to
be suggesting that the greenhouse effect is actually in operation at
present. This is not universally accepted and is not uncontentious.
The additional point that, if it is in effect, it is caused by human
activity is pointed out as likely to be true.
The logical fallacy is:
A, B, C -> D
X
Y -> Z
Stated as above, it is clear that 'X' is simply a statement of fact,
but doesn't carry the argument from C -> D to D -> X to X -> Y.
However, stated in sequence, like that, a casual reader is being
invited to believe that it does.
Peter Brooks
> and not seriously misleading.
>
'seriously' misleading. However, in the context of protesting that
there has been a scientific malfeasance, such a minor misleading point
is not a good support for the argument. A nay-sayer could point it out
as actually, if not 'seriously', misleading as prima facie evidence
that the author is making a special plea, not a rational argument.
I'm really saying that it's even more important than usual to be
precisely accurate.
Dave Smith
I agree. Of course, similarly rigorous standards need to be applied
to the arguments of the nay-sayers.
Dave Smith
Dave Smith
>
> - Show quoted text -
The greenhouse effect is in operation. What is in dispute is whether
there is global warming, and if there is global warming how much of
the increase is anthropogenic. The author of the article discusses
both these issues.
Dave Smith
Dave Smith
> leaks of interesting information into the public domain. Of course, as
> with any information, you can't be sure it is accurate, or even that
> it is more accurate than the information provided by the same
> organisation directly. However, the leaks I've seen tend to have more
> than just a ring of truth.
>
>
> Not very scientific, but I doubt that all e-mails between scientists
> could, or even should be.
The plot thickens:
Dave Smith
Argus Tuft
"Dave Smith" <da...@dsmith60.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b41782df-d4f9-4811...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
One of the early comments appended to the above suggests that it was more
likely an inside job by a whistleblower. It appears to have been removed.
Conspiracy theorists are having a field day.
Argus