• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Science Doesn't Say Anything - Scientists Do

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You can't put honesty in a test tube.

"Science" doesn't say anything-scientists do.

Those are a couple of the illuminating conclusions we can draw from the global warming e-mail scandal.

"You mean science is not objective?" No, unless the scientists are, and too often they are not. I don't want to impugn all scientists, but it is true that some of them are less than honest. Sometimes they lie to get or keep their jobs. Sometimes they lie to get grant money. Sometimes they lie to further their political beliefs. Sometimes they don't intentionally lie, but they draw bad scientific conclusions because they only look for what they hope to find.

Misbehavior by scientists is more prevalent than you might think. A survey conducted by University of Minnesota researchers found that 33% of scientists admitted to engaging in some kind of research misbehavior, including more than 20% of mid-career scientists who admitted to "changing the design, methodology or results of a study in response to pressure from a funding source." Think of how many more have done this but refuse to admit it! (The researchers said as much in their findings.)

Outright lies and deception certainly seem to be the case with "Climategate." The exposed e-mails reveal cherry picking; manipulating data; working behind the scenes to censor dissenting views; and doubting what the measurements say because they don't fit their pre-determined conclusion. Matt Drudge headlined this yesterday as the "Greatest scandal in modern science."

More Here
 

billwald

New Member
Written texts don't "say" anything. The Bible doesn't "say" anything. Texts and statements must be interpreted.
 

targus

New Member
Written texts don't "say" anything. The Bible doesn't "say" anything. Texts and statements must be interpreted.

You seem to grasp the point of the OP.

Scientific data must be interpreted.

Those who are doing the interpreting may have a bias or agenda.
 

SolaSaint

Well-Known Member
Rev,

All this makes one wonder how far beyond just climate data this scandal may go. Sure does seem like these scientists manipulated data or just out right dumped it to skew results in favor of global warming. What about evolutionary studies? How much have scientists lied about this? Of course we know evolution isn't true, but these scientists either believe it to be or want it to be just like global warming. Or is this apples and oranges?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Rev,

All this makes one wonder how far beyond just climate data this scandal may go. Sure does seem like these scientists manipulated data or just out right dumped it to skew results in favor of global warming. What about evolutionary studies? How much have scientists lied about this? Of course we know evolution isn't true, but these scientists either believe it to be or want it to be just like global warming. Or is this apples and oranges?

When ever scientist want to control dissenting views then I am suspicious of their so called "science" we see this happening with climate change, evolution, vaccinations, and abortion related cancers.
 

SolaSaint

Well-Known Member
Didn't Obama say in a speech (maybe state-of-the-union) that he was going to return science to it's rightful place? Maybe this is what he meant?
 

Gold Dragon

Well-Known Member
For those interested, here is Phil Jones' official response to the most talked about e-mail. He has also agreed to step down from his position because his association with this controversy has hindered the day to day running of the CRU. He does claim to have done nothing wrong at the moment and that these e-mails are being misinterpreted and taken out of context.

University of East Anglia: Climatic Research Unit update - 17.45 November 23

...

Comment from Professor Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit:

The following email, which I can confirm is genuine, has caused a great deal of ill-informed comment, but has been taken completely out of context and I want to put the record straight.

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct +is 0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998."
The first thing to point out is that this refers to one diagram - not a scientific paper - which was used in the World Meteorological Organisation's statement on the status of the global climate in 1999 (WMO-no.913).

The diagram consisted of three curves showing 50-year average temperature variations for the last 1000 years. Each curve referred to a scientific paper and a key gives their details.

Climate records consist of actual temperature records from the mid-19th century and proxy data (tree rings, coral, ice cores, etc) which go back much further. The green curve on the diagram included proxy data up to 1960 but only actual temperatures from 1961 onwards. This is what is being discussed in the email.

The word 'trick' was used here colloquially as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Aaron

Member
Site Supporter
Yep. And Puff, the Magic Dragon was only an innocent song about a boy who outgrew his world of make believe.
 

Aaron

Member
Site Supporter
Gold Dragon, I don't quite know how to break this to you, but . . .

there's no Santa Claus either.
 

Gold Dragon

Well-Known Member
Yeah, and I also believed Clinton when he said, "I didn't have s3x with that woman"
Whether you believe him or not is up to you. I'm just presenting his argument as what he claims. We can all read and judge for ourselves if we believe his explanation for his e-mails.

When two children argue about something or when two people go to court, it is useful to get both sides of the story before making a judgement.

I addressed my post "For those interested". Some people have already made up their mind about this issue and will not be interested. That is their prerogative.
 

billwald

New Member
>Scientific data must be interpreted.

>Those who are doing the interpreting may have a bias or agenda.

Everyone has a bias and agenda.

For example, St Paul's letters. All we have is one side of an exchange and any conclusion about what initiated them is a biased agenda.
 

targus

New Member
Everyone has a bias and agenda.

For example, St Paul's letters. All we have is one side of an exchange and any conclusion about what initiated them is a biased agenda.

Yes, that is the whole point of the OP.

"Science doesn't say anything" - it is the interpretation of some scientists that is tell us all this stuff about global warming.

Those scientists appear to have a bias.
 
Top