Lab politics

[bobalot]

Are you seriously this stupid? Have you ever worked in a professional or academic environment where you actually had to present something?

A link to wikipedia and a right-wing blog do not constitute evidence. Even still, you are supposed to present your source, summarise the data/evidence related to your particular point and present it to your audience in a concise manner.

You don't throw a link at your audience (us) and expect us to wade through it all and find your evidence for you.

This is a skill taught in to children in school. It's unbelievable that you actually have the gall to tell us that hundreds of scientists around the world are "biased" (and their results by implication are wrong) when you can't even apply high school level skills.

[LionElJonson]

Are you seriously this stupid? Have you ever worked in a professional or academic environment where you actually had to present something?

A link to wikipedia and a right-wing blog do not constitute evidence. Even still, you are supposed to present your source, summarise the data/evidence related to your particular point and present it to your audience in a concise manner.

You don't throw a link at your audience (us) and expect us to wade through it all and find your evidence for you.

This is a skill taught in to children in school. It's unbelievable that you actually have the gall to tell us that hundreds of scientists around the world are "biased" (and their results by implication are wrong) when you can't even apply high school level skills.

This isn't a fucking university essay; I'm not going to spend hours digging through Arxiv or Proquest or whatever looking for papers vaguely related to my point, and I'm not going to waste time going (Wikipedia, 2010) and putting the link at the bottom of the post in a Harvard reference. If that's what you expected, I'm sorry, but you're going to be disappointed. Instead, I've given you things directly related to the point I've given you, and put them directly in response to the points you asked for clarification of. That right-wing blog has the code excerpt with the fudge factor right there, with the blatantly-obvious graph sitting there! You don't have to trawl through it to get it; it's right there; that's why I gave it to you in the first place!

[Alyrium Denryle]

The source doesn't matter, just the facts, and that was the first source that stated the facts clearly.

The source does matter, because someone with a stated ideological agenda will most certainly fall victim to the same confirmation bias you ascribe to Us. By Us I of course mean scientists. Lets see, who is more reliable? Scientists who derive their ideological agenda from evidence, or those who have a stated and up-front agenda that explicitly colors their analysis?

Gee, I wonder...

Every scientist knows how to recognize their own confirmation biases. It is the reason we use statistics and quantify everything, and design our models A priori, and then try to falsify them. We do this sequentially, in different independent research groups all of whom seek to prove everyone else to be inadequate. That is how science works, so please, provide a mechanism by which confirmation bias will become a pervasive problem? It is not as if science has not dealt with politically contentious issues in the past. People found Quantum Mechanics confusing, and it did not conform to their preconceived notions about how the universe should work. Yet adoption was by and large very fast once the data came in. Same thing with Plate Tectonics once maps of the ocean floor became available.

Many people who work with climate change dont even study the atmosphere, they study complex ecological systems like ocean acidification. It just so happens that the data in these fields also supports the anthropogenic model.

That appeals to "scientific consensus" are so common is a hint that something wrong is going on; the opinions of the majority of scientists don't matter, just The Truth. I don't know what The Truth is (though I suspect it's probably rather less catastrophic than many environmentalists and politicians would have you believe), and until politics gets out of the field and stops corrupting the process, noone will.

Guess what bitch, I have explained to you how politics has minimal influence over the process. Unless you have an actual argument, sit down, and go read a book.

Do you have ANY evidence whatsoever to support your contention that scientists, by and large, fall victim to confirmation bias in a community wide fashion, something we are not only trained to avoid, but something that the methodology we use is systematically designed to prevent? Any? Whatsoever?

Do you have evidence countering the proposition that instead, the political leanings of scientists are data-driven?

Can you counter the falsification of your proposition by the rejection of decidedly left-wing scientists of the proposals supported by left-wing groups like Green Peace? If your model was true, you would see a large number of scientists upposing GM food, Nuclear Power, and other practices. We dont.

Obviously that training hasn't taken hold very well, then.

No, it is not so obvious. You do not get to patronize me, child. I am in fact smarter than you, better educated, and am a member of the community you decry. You have no idea what you have been talking about, and have been spouting bullshit this entire fucking time.

[Alyrium Denryle]

This isn't a fucking university essay; I'm not going to spend hours digging through Arxiv or Proquest or whatever looking for papers vaguely related to my point, and I'm not going to waste time going (Wikipedia, 2010) and putting the link at the bottom of the post in a Harvard reference.

You dont need to do THAT, but we do have higher posting standards than you present.

That right-wing blog has the code excerpt with the fudge factor right there, with the blatantly-obvious graph sitting there! You don't have to trawl through it to get it; it's right there; that's why I gave it to you in the first place!

And if you bothered to pay attention, said Fudge Factor does not mean what you, and the RedState blog think it does. It was someone playing with Math, trying to mathematically correct for a recent divergence in calculations of temp based on tree-rings, and actual data from weather stations that did not exist until recent measurements. It was never published, and never used in any way other than trying to get a handle on something weird in a data set. We do it all the time.

If I had an email exchange talking about "Transforming the dataset", what would you, as a sniveling lay person conclude? Possibly that I was altering data? Yeah, probably. The reality is, I am just taking the natural log of my data so that it meets the assumptions of Parametric Statistics. All it will mean is that when I do a linear regression, there will be a relationship between the natural log of my dependent variable, and the independent variable measured.

That is basically what that fudge factor is, but even less mathematically or scientifically significant.

[D.Turtle]

Investigations by politicians and their appointees, IIRC.

Well, you "remember" wrongly: It was an investigation by the relevant (scientific) authorities, as following this link will show you.

I'll even quote the relevant part:

Recent inquiries and investigations of the CRU emails and IPCC

Recent investigations and inquiries into the emails by other organizations have all resulted in clearing the scientists of alleged wrong-doing.

* The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review (University of East Anglia)
* Report of the International Panel set up by the University of East Anglia to examine the research of the Climatic Research Unit (University of East Anglia)
* The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (U.K. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee) (PDF) (61 pp, 313K)
* Assessing an IPCC assessment – An analysis of statements on projected regional impact in the 2007 report (Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency) (PDF) (100 pp, 1.9MB)
* RA-10 Final Investigation Report Involving Dr. Michael E. Mann (Pennsylvania State University) (PDF) (19 pp, 779K)

That post doesn't discuss this particular topic, at all. I cannot find the text you quoted anywhere on that page.

Ah yes, the old "I'm to stupid to look at links" excuse.

Quoting the page I linked to, there is in the middle this very subtle hint at what you could maybe look at:

The posts we put up initially are still valid today – and the 1000’s of comment stand as testimony to the contemporary fervour of the conversation:

* The CRU Hack
* The CRU Hack: Context
* Where’s the Data?
* The CRU Hack: More Context

The best summary of points (and where the part about the "fudge factors" is from) is the second link.

[someone_else]

Sorry to interrupt this fun shooting contest, but some time ago I saw a video of Neil Degrasse Tyson where he says something about politics and science in USA, and seems to prefer repubblicans to democrats since "funding for science under Republican administrations has been historically higher than under Democrats".
Here it is.

What you think of it?

[ray245]

Sorry to interrupt this fun shooting contest, but some time ago I saw a video of Neil Degrasse Tyson where he says something about politics and science in USA, and seems to prefer repubblicans to democrats since "funding for science under Republican administrations has been historically higher than under Democrats".
Here it is.

What you think of it?

Isn't he using Clinton of all people as an example of Democrats not giving enough funding to science? After all, Clinton was the one that reduce spending to achieve a budget surplus. It will be better to compare the allocation of budget towards science research under Bush and Clinton.

[Chaotic Neutral]

Sorry to interrupt this fun shooting contest, but some time ago I saw a video of Neil Degrasse Tyson where he says something about politics and science in USA, and seems to prefer repubblicans to democrats since "funding for science under Republican administrations has been historically higher than under Democrats".
Here it is.

What you think of it?

I wouldn't be surprised. You can't have the most powerful military in the world without the best equipment.

[bobalot]

Are you seriously this stupid? Have you ever worked in a professional or academic environment where you actually had to present something?

A link to wikipedia and a right-wing blog do not constitute evidence. Even still, you are supposed to present your source, summarise the data/evidence related to your particular point and present it to your audience in a concise manner.

You don't throw a link at your audience (us) and expect us to wade through it all and find your evidence for you.

This is a skill taught in to children in school. It's unbelievable that you actually have the gall to tell us that hundreds of scientists around the world are "biased" (and their results by implication are wrong) when you can't even apply high school level skills.

This isn't a fucking university essay; I'm not going to spend hours digging through Arxiv or Proquest or whatever looking for papers vaguely related to my point, and I'm not going to waste time going (Wikipedia, 2010) and putting the link at the bottom of the post in a Harvard reference. If that's what you expected, I'm sorry, but you're going to be disappointed. Instead, I've given you things directly related to the point I've given you, and put them directly in response to the points you asked for clarification of. That right-wing blog has the code excerpt with the fudge factor right there, with the blatantly-obvious graph sitting there! You don't have to trawl through it to get it; it's right there; that's why I gave it to you in the first place!

Your stupidity shines through again. Now, I'm certain you have never been in an academic environment or even a professional one where presenting evidence for your claims in paramount. A short summary is not a university essay.

A few short lines providing evidence for each argument is all that is required. All you have provided is your OPINION and WORTHLESS FUCKING SOURCES.

When you casually dismiss the independently reviewed work of hundreds of scientists, we expect better evidence than a few worthless links to wikipedia, a right-wing blog and YOUR OPINIONS.

Jesus Christ, what a fucking worthless shit stain.

[Lagmonster]

I'm going to remind people here that we have a no-dogpiling rule for a reason. I'm going to be monitoring this thread closely and I will strip out anyone who is a) just shouting at him, b) attempting to drag the topic onto ever-expanding tangents, and c) joining in late just to get a few punches in.

[madd0ct0r]

ok.

so

1) in American terms, more scientists are democrats then republican

1.1) This may because the republicans play up to their anti-intellectual members.

1.2) It may be because all scientists are loony lefties

1.3) It may be because left wing scientists had a small majority, and used it to force Republican colleagues out over the years.

1.4) It may be because scientists tend to think issues like global warming are BIG issues that deserve attention AND that the appropriate methods for dealing with it involve top down intervention, a philosophy more suited to Democrats then Republicans

1.5) It may be that most scientists work for the state (directly or indirectly) and are thus unlikely to vote against their own interests.


1.1 is plausible, but as noted Democrats (Clinton) have a mixed record here too.

1.2 can be tested if anyone can find data on the political leanings of say, Member of the Royal Society. I suspect they're distributed reasonably centrally (for the UK), with only a few scoring fr right enough to be equal to USA republican. Remember the USA Democrats are still probably to the right of the Conservatives in the UK.

1.3 - Possible - I can't think of any easy way to prove or disprove it

1.4 - Seems very likely. the 2nd half of the sentance is ripe for falsification however. There are certainly enough GW entrepenuers.

1.5 - Possible, its a phenomenon that has been noted elsewhere. possibly check smaller groups of environmental scientists, industrial chemists, and weapon researchers to see how leanings vary. This comes back to AAAS possibly not being an accurate image of the entire scientific population.

[PainRack]

Liberal bias media.

If there was a liberal media bias against the Republicans, pray tell why is it that in the last 3 US elections, the Democratic party nomineehas consistently received MORE negative media reports than their opposition?

Seriously, when one considers that Barrack Obama in his runup to the President received MORE negative press reports than John McCain.........

CMPA issued a report showing that 72 percent of the statements in TV news reports about Obama in late spring and early summer were negative, whereas 57 percent of the statements about McCain were negative

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... l-election
Kerry.
Gore.
Its undeniable that reporters have a more liberal bias than the average population given their demographics. But to argue that the media in general is left leaning while fox is the only one on the right is insane.


Frankly, I wont' find it difficult to believe that scientists in general are liberal. Look at their demographics. They're highly educated, urbanised, exposed to multiple cultures and races and viewpoints. Their demographics ARE supposed to make them liberal.
Its however up to you to argue that issues such as global warming etc are driven by liberal ideology as opposed to being derived from the available data, which is why Aly has been so harsh on you.