-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
The march for science
- Thread starter PLC1
- Start date
Werbung:
All they need to do is BE scientists, not idealogues.
One would think that would be the case.
The trouble is, science sometimes clashes with ideology.
No, I think it's the ideology doing the clashing. Science is just science.
One plus one is just two, science gives it no other choice. When you make one pretend to be 1.9 because you need the outcome to be four, then you have made there to be a clash.
Science is what it is.
It clashes with ideology, or ideology clashes with it, when that ideology isn't supported by facts, observations, and experimentation.
Exactly. Facts, observations and experimentation are not subject to opinion.
I see Michael Mann was part of the crowd. A key figure in playing with data. Not to mention refusing to submit his work for peer review.
I'm not familiar with Michael Mann or his work. He doesn't sound like much of a scientist, but no doubt there were some scientifically illiterates among the marchers.
Openmind
Well-Known Member
You will find a lot about Michael Mann on Wikipedia. And, while he has been repeatedly attacked by the climate change deniers, he has been cleared of all wrong doing.
His educational background is flawless. Undergraduate at UC Berkeley, post graduate at Yales
Here is one paragraph from Wikipedia that talks about one of those controversies. It seems, however that he is a VERY WELL respected scientist, and that he has published over 200 work that have been PEER REVIEWED.
"Mann is author of more than 200 peer-reviewed and edited publications. He has also published three books: Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming (2008), The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines (2012), and, together with co-author Tom Toles, The Madhouse Effect: How Climate Change Denial Is Threatening Our Planet, Destroying Our Politics, and Driving Us Crazy (2016). In 2012, the European Geosciences Union described his publication record as "outstanding for a scientist of his relatively young age". Mann is also a co-founder and contributor to the climatology blog RealClimate."
And
"CRU email controversy[edit]
In November 2009, hackers obtained a large number of emails exchanged among researchers at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia and with other scientists, including Mann. The release of their correspondence on the Internet sparked the Climatic Research Unit email controversy, commonly known as 'Climategate',[34][35] in which extracts from emails were publicized to raise accusations against the scientists. A series of investigations cleared the scientists of wrongdoing. It was found that their critics, who made unsupported accusations of falsification and manipulation or destruction of data, were commonly mistaken about the scientific issues.[36][37]
Mann was specifically cleared by several inquiries. Pennsylvania State University (PSU) commissioned two reviews related to the emails and his research, which reported in February and July 2010. They cleared Mann of misconduct, stating there was no substance to the allegations, but criticized him for sharing unpublished manuscripts with third parties.[38][39]
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) gave detailed consideration to petitions with allegations against Mann from lobbyists including the Southeastern Legal Foundation, Peabody Energy, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the Ohio Coal Association: the EPA found their claims were not supported by the evidence.[36][40]
At the request of Senator Jim Inhofe, who has called the science of man-made climate change a hoax, the Inspector General of the United States Department of Commerce investigated the emails in relation to NOAA, and concluded that there was no evidence of inappropriate manipulation of data.[37][41] The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the National Science Foundation also carried out a detailed investigation, which it closed on August 15, 2011. It agreed with the conclusions of the university inquiries, and exonerated Mann of charges of scientific misconduct."
Wikipedia
Last edited:
I see!
So, he is accused of manipulating data because he, like every scientific organization on Earth, has been saying something that the political ideologues don't want to believe, is that it?
The march for science was a good idea, wasn't it?
Openmind
Well-Known Member
This is what I read! It is too easy to destroy the credibility of one person by a mere comment, that provides no reliable sources for such comment. This is the old trick used by the most extreme Republicans. . .drop a nasty word. . .drop an "I heard some place" and if it is repeated often enough, it becomes "reality," FAKE reality, but that is all some people need.
Yes, the march for science was a good idea. And only imbecile would denigrate the need to continue with scientific studies and projects.
Still, I agree that, as you said, in such a huge crowd (all over the civilised world) EVERYONE was not a scientist, or at least not "top notch" scientists. But Michael Mann was NOT one to be joked about. In fact, if I had been able to attend one of those marches, I would have gone. . .and I am certainly NOT a scientist, but I have a lot of respect and curiosity for science.
Michael Mann and Phil Jones brought the world the so called "Hockey Stick" chart.
Similarly I am confident there were a great many scientists who remember the scientific method and take it seriously.
Mike has been working at UVA for some years now so we have had a better opportunity than most to follow his career. Part of which is his ongoing refusal to divulge his research.
Can't peer review something without the data.
But to his credit he did somewhat recently revisit that work and discovered major flaws which dialed back the puprooted effects rather dramatically.
Werbung:
Here's an example of why the march for science was necessary. Probably a lot more such marches are also needed.
