Science and Grants (Introduction)

by David Turell , Saturday, December 19, 2009, 21:41 (5452 days ago) @ xeno6696
edited by unknown, Saturday, December 19, 2009, 22:20

David,
> 
> You paint a picture of a bogeyman here; both for climate and for research. There is no Illuminati at work here. I agree however that the financial accounting should be clear, but listing predispositions of viewers? That sounds much more like 1984 than what you propose is currently being done.-I did not say anything like 1984. The agreers and disagreers about climate are well known to each other; the climategate emails indicate the stonewalling that went on when disagreers like Mc Intyre asked for original source data to review. McI is now a peer reviewer for the IPCC. The real issue is transparency.
>
> Bad ideas are always expelled from science by scientists, never once has an idea been debunked due to financial ties. -The time is now. Your life's experience is getting in the way. Remember, when there is fraud follow the money.
> 
> Though one point you bring up that I think is valid--a journal writing is always a summary of all a person's work. Why isn't there a place to deposit all raw data the scientist produced?-That's the point. It isn't being done properly.
> 
> In my mind, think of all the potential information that is lost because the scientist thinks something is unimportant. Some outlier, etc; you know what I mean here.-Agreed. 
> 
> THAT's the kind of thing that universities need to undertake.-But they are contaminated by huge grants also.-Read Pat Michaels. He is an honest disagreer who debunked material that James Hanson fooled congress with several years ago. Hanson presented temperature records that left off heads and tails of preceeding and following years of data, with obvious changes to the slope of temperature over many decades when everything available was added back. Hanson started this phoniness.-http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598230426037244.html