From Watts Up With That:
"......If the climate models cannot get it right for the past 10 years, why should we trust them for the next century?
Climategate reveals how predetermined political agendas shaped science rather than the other way around. It is high time to question the true agenda of the scientists now on the hot seat and to bring skeptics back into the public debate."
The question seems reasonable. The statement also seems reasonable.
So how about it, all you 'mentalist politicians and scientists - fancy a debate, instead of talking amongst yourselves?
1 comment:
The question seems reasonable.
It does, assuming the statement that the models can't get it right is correct. If so, one has to ask which models and what question they're being used to give guidance in answering. There are a large number of models available to researchers for different purposes; this selection is but a small one. The models can be used in all manner of investigations, such as these. The usefulness of models is, of course, dependent on whether one is using them for a purpose to which they are suited and whether one understands their limitations.
The statement also seems reasonable.
I agree that science should not be politically motivated; it is the job of scientists to present facts (to within the limits of their knowledge), not to state political schemes that ought to follow from them.
... fancy a debate, instead of talking amongst yourselves?
Unfortunately, the answer is "probably not." This post, although by a biologist, sums up why. Of course, many of those who question the more "watermelony" line are by no means as ignorant as the creationists against whom that fellow directs his ire, but the frustration of physicists is similar.
Post a Comment