The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > All in a good cause > Comments

All in a good cause : Comments

By Aynsley Kellow, published 16/5/2008

The good cause - one that most of us support - can all too readily corrupt the conduct of science.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
“The history of science is replete with error and fraud.”

There’s a statement to cause frothing at the mouth among the GW zealots! They will go into shock over this:

“Data are routinely gathered, manipulated and modelled by the same research teams and the discipline has not insisted on anything like full transparency. Many of the people engaging in this science are then acting as advocates for particular policy responses.”

They will not, of course, give credence to the last sentence of the article.
Posted by Mr. Right, Friday, 16 May 2008 10:27:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Another IPA clone pretending to offer an "objective" opinion as to how the process of scientific research is done and even more importantly how it is "communicated" to the public.

And how it is then used to create "consumer" products to make our lives more "meaningful".

Never mind that the hugely over-whelming amount of research that is done in the USA for instance, is funded by the Pentagon military-industrial-"entertaiment" COMPLEX.

Such funding covers ever possible area of human research and activity, and not just in the hard sciences.

The Pentagon even produces video games and "advises" on the content of block-buster films. And even provides all sort of material support.

Anyone who thinks or proposes that such research and the results that it produces, even in the form of consumer products, is not biased is seriously deluded.

And as we all know the IPA is a propaganda mouth-piece for the COMPLEX and its all-pervading MATRIX. And its Global Spin machine as described by Sharon Beder.

The one-dimensional hollow "men" referred to in the phrase by TS Eliot---we are the hollow men.

A new book by Nick Turse titled The Complex:How the Military Invades Our Everyday Life provides a very detailed description of how the "values" and "world"-view of the system shapes every aspect of our lives. Amazon reviews would be a good place to start.

We now all "live" in the all pervasive MATRIX created by the COMPLEX--Mumford's Invisible Megamachine
Posted by Ho Hum, Friday, 16 May 2008 12:13:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Given the uncertainties, it seems to me therefore that we need a dominant branch of the CSIRO which is fully funded by the Australian electorate.

1. With no affiliation to corporations.

2. With no input from corporate or economic think-tanks.

3. Pursuing pure science and performing research entirely for it's own sake.

4. That (if possible) doesn't have to compete for funds.

5. That insulates it's researchers from external political and corporate pressures, while granting them security of tenure and freedom of speech, defended by a dedicated federal Minister against all comers.

Now more than ever we need unadulterated research applied to climatic disturbance, soil fertility, GM crops, water conservation, transport and energy.

Over time the CSIRO itself has been genetically modified by the use of CRCs, which served a very good role in the advancement of Australian industry (I have more than a passing aquaintance with this). But the kind of research we need now should pay no attention to economic matters whatsoever - WHATSOEVER.

We will never get the answers if we stupidly stick to the same methods that got us into this mess in the first place.......
Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464, Friday, 16 May 2008 12:40:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Has it not occurred to the climate change skeptics that 30 - 40 years ago today's climate change supporters would have been the ones going against the flow? Where were the IPA's of the time? What were they saying then?

30 - 40 years ago we all thought the earth's water, soil and air was each so large as to absorb anything we put into or onto it. We've found that to be wrong. Were not those opposing pollution then the ones going against the flow? Where were the IPA's of the time? What were they saying then?

Can none of these climate change supporters be intelligent, sophisticated or good quality scientists? Why are they all wrong?

John
Posted by RenegadeScience, Friday, 16 May 2008 1:51:50 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“As I said at the beginning, the history of science is replete with error and fraud. In science, the best kind of quality assurance is to celebrate sceptical dissent and reject any call to bow to a consensus, that “the science is settled”, on principle not just even, but especially when it supports our preferences. Because as Carl Sagan once put it, “Where we have strong emotions, we’re liable to fool ourselves”.”

True and “Strong Emotions” extending to ego, income and self-interest.

Many people have commented on the vagaries, suppositions and errors which cast sufficient sceptical doubt across the entire pseudo-science of GW theory.

Doubtless, as they have done in the past, some GW zealots, who think their’s is the only opinion which matters and should be espoused, will vilify and condemn them (and me) as “misguided” and suggest censorship, as occurred in another thread.

But for all that, we remain independent observers with vested interests in the outcome of GW, no more and no less an interest than every other individual on earth.

Ho Hum “Another IPA clone pretending to offer an "objective" opinion as to how the process of scientific research is done and even more importantly how it is "communicated" to the public.”

Ah an example of what I mentioned above from a pseudo scientific supporter of the notion of AGW, doing what Barry Brook’s article pretentiously warned against as “don’t feed the trolls”.

One is drawn to conclude, “trolls” are a mixed bunch, some talking out against AGW, some talking,like HoHum, in favour of AGW.

How do you tell a pro-AGW troll from an anti-AGW troll?

Easy, pro-AGW trolls are lightweights, you can throw them further.

Chris Shaw “That insulates it's researchers from external political and corporate pressures, while granting them security of tenure and freedom of speech, defended by a dedicated federal Minister against all comers.”

Nice idea but how do you separate the researchers from their natural desire for self-improvement outside their CSIRO predicted role?

My point, your noble proposal is idealistic and unfortunately, even is practical, would not be probable.
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 16 May 2008 1:59:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
i have an honest question.

kellow is arguing that we should be careful of modern scientific pronouncements because of "error and fraud". he has a general attack on modern scientific method, the emphasis upon modelling at the expense of testing.

whatever the merit of this general attack, the specific example he refers to in the article is the orange-bellied parrot, and the minister's use of the science modelling to disallow the construction of a wind farm.

my question is: how does the parrot example support kellow's argument?

my understanding is that

1) the modelling indicated that the wind farm posed a risk but a tiny risk to the parrot

2) the minister used this tiny risk in order to justify a decision he wished to make for political reasons.

so, this example seems to discredit the procedure of basing policy on the science. but how does this example discredit the scientific process or the scientific conclusion?

is the claim that that the modelling in 1) was unreliable, or that there was a better procedure to evaluate the risk? if not, what is the claim? what is kellow's example meant to demonstrate?

honestly, i have no clue what kellow is trying to make of this example.
Posted by bushbasher, Friday, 16 May 2008 4:39:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I seem to recall bushbasher that the minister gave this particular little snippet of research way too much importance. It agreed with his personal preference (locals might vote for someone else if it went ahead) & had nil to do with practicality (saving $ in the long term).

Science is only reliable when it has no agenda. When most in a particular field agree on something it doesn't mean they have one. If climatologists said for example CO2 was good for the environment how many here would be crying "it's a fix"?
Posted by bennie, Saturday, 17 May 2008 5:29:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi bennie, i think we're agreeing. but i wouldn't phrase it that the parrot-farm science was unreliable (or at least i can't see anybody arguing that). it was the use of this science to add window-dressing to a decision which was made for non-scientific reasons.

again, if this is wrong, i'd like to know where. or, if it is right, what is kellow's purpose in referring to it?
Posted by bushbasher, Saturday, 17 May 2008 6:28:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author's argument is a little more nuanced than at first glance. Presumptions included in this parrot modelling weren't apparent to either the public or parhaps even to the minister. Unfortunately it's becoming more of an issue - from trifles such as orange bellied parrots to the more serious issue of AGW - and in the case of environmental science becomes problematic.

Scientific findings can be massaged depending on the ideology of the 'programmer'; never mind that all the assumptions can be justified. For everyone else to have faith in them they need to believe your assumptions are correct. A never-ending circle. Eternal room for debate. Infinite opportunity to muddy the waters for anyone who disagrees with your results or your ideology or your methodology or because they enjoy the limelight or because they're contrarian or like a little polemics.

Of course, you and I bushbasher are discerning readers able to cut through the chaff. Not so our fellow readers who disagree with us!
Posted by bennie, Sunday, 18 May 2008 10:01:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi bennie, i'm sorry but i'm going to have to agree with you again!

i agree that kellow is expressing a suspicion of modeling. and i'm not totally unsympathetic to these suspicions, for the tweaking reasons you discuss. i have more faith than kellow in the integrity of scientists, and the robustness of the scientific method, but i appreciate the issue.

but i still fail to see, at least from what kellow says, how the parrot is an example. his expression is "Modeling for the Bald Hills wind farm on the Orange-bellied Parrot embodied very conservative assumptions to err on the side of caution."

i'm not sure if this is meant to mean what he actually says. that is, was it

1) "worst case" assumptions were built into the model

2) parrot-friendly restrictions were to be applied once the model churned out the answer.

you and kellow seem to be saying 1), and i'll take your word for it.

but, in any case, the model concluded that there was a snowflake's chance in hell that a parrot was going to get whacked. and so it was a tenuous and dishonest version of 2) which seems to be the issue.

so, i'm not disagreeing (here) with kellow's concern. but the parrot doesn't seem to indicate the dangers of arbitrary modeling, just the dangers of boneheaded politicians.
Posted by bushbasher, Sunday, 18 May 2008 5:10:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yeah I'm flogging a dead parrot here a bit.

The concept of "virtual science" hasn't helped the author's argument. From what I gather the methodology used in the windfarm research wasn't tangible enough to give realistic results. "Value-laden assumptions" led to the decision against it, and this caused a stink. The same kind of assumptions used in studying GW don't get the recognition they deserve.

Which is all a subtle encouragement to think twice about the current wisdom surrounding GW. Personally I'm not inclined to "celebrate sceptical dissent and reject any call to bow to a consensus" when such consensus is so widespread.
Posted by bennie, Sunday, 18 May 2008 6:05:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wonder whether the IPA would support this argument wnen it comes to genetically engineered foods...If you want an area where corruption of science has occurred in the most profound and despicable of ways - look no further. Money pours into academia and organisations such as CSIRO from biotech corporations - they fund buildings, chairs, research - and inevitably results...Results that are then fed into regulators who look no further and give it the quick political tick. Corruption of science isn't occurring in the public interest (ie with climate change) - it is occuring in the private interest and the problems of private funding of public interest universities and public good issues has never been so bad.
Posted by next, Sunday, 18 May 2008 7:20:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is true that science makes mistakes as part of its growing process, but the implied conclusion does not follow at all and further it is unclear who the "dissenters" are in that article. There is far more obvious error and fraud from the countless and clueless armchair climate amateurs, and also from vested interests, such as the fossil fuel company supported self-proclaimed "Institute of Public Affairs". The dissenters that comprised the Inqusition were probably not "celebrated" by Gallileo, and certainly didn't provide "the best kind of quality assurance" (unless perhaps the author thinks that the sun revolves around the earth).

Good scientists are efficient at quickly recognising and dismissing obviously bogus arguments, which is necessary to avoid being bogged down in the tried and trusted filibustering of science by vested interests

As for the rest of us, we must trust in the a consensus coming from climate scientists, or become climate scientists ourselves. However, not everyone has time to become a specialist in every scientific area relating to an environmental issue. This is how science does and must work - an intricate network of trust and interdependency between the fields of research.

The author mentions transparency, but offers no evidence or references to back up their (hinted at) claim that data is not presented fully, methods not given, or computer code is not available. If they should pry open a climate research journal, are they likely to understand what is written there I wonder. If not, how have they made this conclusion - by trusting the opinion of "dissenters" with a more agreeable view?

The "best" quality assurance in science has always been independent testing of theories & models by other appropriately qualified scientists in the field (this is how cold fusion was debunked). This is happening ad nauseum for climate change, and confirming that some of the most pessimistic models are true. However, those that simply don't want to believe the results continually dismiss the masses of evidence by constructing intricate conspiracy theories or crazy explanations, quite contrary to good scientific method.
Posted by Sams, Wednesday, 4 June 2008 3:09:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy