The Today programme [08:52ish] had guest editor Michael Sheen talking to Jon Butterworth, professor of physics at University College London about the brain and this cropped up…..
Sheen: ‘Scientists are not a blank slate are they? If their brains have been somehow effected by their life then how they measure the world is going to be effected by that too…obviously.’
Butterworth: ‘We try obviously…there are statistical ways of trying to quantify that bias… to remove it or minimise it….science is the best way of not fooling yourself and we [scientists] are the easiest people to fool…if you’re doing an experiment you want it to work…it’s that reproducibility and way of reducing the bias by striving for objectivity and also acknowledging there is the bias because pretending it’s not there is the way to remain biased.’
Scientists and BBC environmental journos…the easiest people to fool?….because they want to believe….as Prof. Phil [Hide the decline] Jones of the corrupted CRU said…
‘If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.’
Shame the BBC has implemented an official policy of silencing all those who might question if there is bias.
it’s that reproducibility…
Thats it. Its reproducibility that is the killer. In Physics and Engineering it is reproducibility, that removes any bias one may have. Reproducibility by not just oneself but by others. In many cases, discoveries in Physics lead to engineering and vice versa. In engineering the design/product works or it does not. Period.
The problem is that for Climate Change, calibrating Carbon Dioxide warming on Venus and Mars, with the only formula that works, indicates that reproducibility for carbon dioxide warming on Earth would not be detectable. An unbiased scientist would therefore deduce that something else causes Climate Change.
A correlation with the length of the Solar Cycle with Climate Change, and the Global warming period that ended in 1997, should help to guide intelligent scientists toward an unbiased conclusion.
But then if you are a typically biased middle-class left-wing moron working for the BBC, then it would be inevitable that you would be motivated towards interests in the Arts, Philosophy and the Humanities. Interests in Mathematics, Physics and Astronomy, would need more intelligence. This was something I noticed about “low IQ middle-class people” who vote Labour, and tell me that Inner City Whites, and Black people, who also vote Labour, are just as intelligent as themselves. This would be the reason for the “Group think” motive for the BBC‘s censorship policy for climate science, scientists and scientific debate.
Sheen demonstrating that he has no understanding of what science actually is. He’s probably been talking to too many ‘climatologists’.
The only science that BBC acknowledges is one that is settled. That leaves Physics out.
Agree with the above. I have posted before but will repeat that the BBC does not do science. That alone is in breach of the Charter.
An interesting experiment would be to ask the BBC what they think of creationism. It’s another ‘settled science’ in that its adherents claim it is correct and therefore evolution can’t be correct. The BBC hoots with derision at US Christian fundamentalists and their views on creationism, but have you ever heard them laugh at Islam’s similar views?
By its very nature science is a sceptical process.
Except in the case of climate ‘science’, where scepticism is scorned and ridiculed like religious heresy once was.
So when we have Phil Jones moaning that he won’t release his data because other scientists might pull it to bits the BBC don’t bat an eyelid. In fact, just like the rest of the astounding Climategate revelations they don’t even rate it worth a mention, so the whole lying, corrupt sham of an excuse for science escapes unchallenged by the home of ‘the world’s best investigative journalism’.
But then they had their own Climategate and it was called 28gate. A bit like Phil Jones, they didn’t want to share their ‘data’ either and spent hundreds of thousands defending their refusal to answer a FOI request. Unfortunately for them they didn’t bargain on the persistence of the common man and they got found out:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2012/11/heres-a-bbc-scandal-that-should-really-make-you-disgusted/
But just like Jones and co., they were never held to account for it.
Conspiracy? What conspiracy?
Johnny, You are right. Scientific research should be published in a peer-referred journal with sufficient information for the research to be replicated by other scientists. And , if they require further information, the original researcher should supply it. Any failure to do this is not science, it is bullshit.
The scientific journal should be a recognised one, rather then one founded by climatists, operating a closed shop peer review system.
Yes, what is called (correctly) ‘pal review’.
“Pal review”. I like that.
NCBBC , Yes. One problem is that when you go for a “blind peer” review system, the reviewer can tell by the topic who the author is. And they tend to be in the same subject area. My preferred option would be for, let’s say, a physics paper to be peer reviewed by, let’s say, a zoologist. Obviously, He or she would not know much about the subject area. But, the point is to scrutinise the methodology . It doesnot happen very often in academia ! Mostly a bit of a closed shop.
One problem is that when you go for a “blind peer” review system, the reviewer can tell by the topic who the author is
You are right. The reviewer can tell who the author is by simply by noting the topic, papers published by the author, and accompanying references. The work under review is most likely to be a continuation of previous work. In many instances the paper turns out to be a minor reworking of a previous publication – which was itself trivial.
Contrast – In a mature discipline such as Physics, there are quite a few researchers around the world, who have a different PoV from the author, or work in areas that are not too distant from the work under review. There is also a culture of intense jealousy, and intellectual contempt for other people’s work. Thus, it is relatively easy for the editor to get a good opinion of the work.
Any failure to do this is not science, it is bullshit.
The so-called scientists of Climatism argue that their data, research supported by the tax payer though it may be, is not subject to FOI. They would rather burn or erase the data, then make it available to other sceptical researchers.
As Popper explained, the acid test is falsifiability.
AGW can’t be falsified as whatever happens it is ‘due to AGW’ – dry/wet summers, snow/no snow etc.
As science goes it’s a joke and its disturbing how many in the establishment have fallen for it.
GC, I think we are all of the same mind on this thread ! I agree with you about Karl Popper. The ultimate test is falsifiability .
Climate Science is a misnomer as its not really about ‘SCIENCE’ (at all) and it’s not about CLIMATE (as in Weather) but about Cultural (GLOBAL) change. When the G8 meet they don’t talk about planting TREES (a well known carbon capture device) no – its about control of global ‘RESOURCES’. Or more importantly charging more for what is (was) ‘natural’ – what you thought was ‘natural’ and everlasting is being taking it away and taxed. There are those Globalists who seek simpler ways to make money from global exploitation (Gambling, money lending, prostitution, bribery and the one-size-fits all schools-of-thought (harmonisation of global markets to improve profitability). The less choice (as a consumer) you will have (and the more you will have to pay for it – as you have no choice). Then there is the Communards of Liberals and Marxists in total harmony they both agree that all money and world markets should be centralised and controlled. The main plank is forcing everyone to buy from ‘approved’ EU co-ops and EU licensing deals – so you pay more for Oil, Food, Housing, Electricity and you agree (by default) to accept that you will be ruled by artificial means and EU legal constraints. The Carbon tax is a tax on ‘Air’ we breath and expire. It’s been called a dangerous toxic gas (in the US) and yet without it we would all perish. Its simply absurd for even so called Scientists to suggest it, and its also just plain wrong that every Scientist agrees with the new conclusion. Malcontent students in humanities, economics and politics of the left all seem to agree. They have seen the UN AGENDA 21 manuscript and they like what they see. They refer to it as the new world order. Without a doubt the US is involved for it already dismantling it own US constitution (based on Christianity replacing democratic ‘cultural values’ as we at home have the ‘Magna-Carta’ reduced to nothing-of-any-importance (despite its importance to or own cultural values and the US bill of rights). We now have to accept Napoleon’s (EU) laws now UK obliged (Lisbon Treaty 1986) to follow implicitly to the letter. The EU is not (never will be) democratically accountable and the US is copying and following the same (secretive) impositions and hoops and directives in tandem. That will mean a substantial goals towards a one-world world political correctness (settled Science objectives). This ‘Green Tax’ is just one of many BBC inspired (or influenced) static ‘SCIENCES’ that does not change no matter what the real life data shows.. Facts that don’t fit the crisis model prediction are ignored.
What the World left ‘group-think’ would gain (has gained already in Europe) is the removal of Statesmanship, Patriotism, Sovereignty, Nation states itself disappear and Education (as it was), History gets rewritten. We already have Nationalised (state) Healthcare, Nationalised (state) Education (including many Universities) and (imposed) National Rivers (NRA) are among EU directives. The few remaining global mega corporations (mainly US Banks) will run everything (just as Orwell predicted) and pay EU bribes for vested interests (the MEPS) in the new EU superstate being built on (stated) hot air emissions.
The UNI campuses are now full of daft (primary school nonsense) politically correct activists who are the shock troops for the new local and World disorder; the BBC deconstructivists (1920’s), the BBC classical modernists (1930’s), the liberal (1940’s) progressives of our age display astonishing ignorance that support the proposed UN Agenda 21 in daily contrivance. Oblique terms such as ‘Climate Change’ and ‘Sustainable Development’ are clues to editorial objectives. The EU has adopted the protocol as has the US. We know what closer collaboration with our EU (so called) allies means…. When (whatever) EU problem and that we need to give more UK money and quietly accept our fate (as allocated by the EU). You will comply with EU regulations, your pay, the hours you work plus your pay will be reduced and pay more direct EU taxes (for non compliance such as lighting a wood stove or using Methane gas to heat your food for instance -even Natural gas will be taxed the same alongside Electricity (even if more efficient) the 90% tax on Petrol and Diesel) will increase. However you will note that this tax hike does not apply to Aircraft for paying tax on fuel (aircraft fuel is internationally tax exempt). The new world elite (like the BBC) have to travel first class.
You can read about the UN Agenda 21 here as it never gets reported on the main media (or BBC fixers like Harrabin).
Thanks for the post.
The question that follows, is what to do about it. Is this our future? Is there a way to make it fail? For instance, by loading it with demands that cannot be met. Eg – importing tens of millions of illiterate and unproductive Africans & Muslims, who will make massive demands on the system that cannot be met. And if they don’t get what they want, go on a destructive & murderous spree that encompasses the elite.
.