Remember me
▼ Content

Would the "Red Team" Approach Be An Improvement Over Peer Review?


Would the "Red Team" Approach Be An Improvement Over Peer Review?22-04-2017 18:13
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
In the WSJ article below Steve Koonin suggests the "Red Team" approach to "Put the 'consensus' to a test, and improve public understanding, th[r]ough an open and adversarial process." What do you think?


https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-red-team-exercise-would-strengthen-climate-science-1492728579
22-04-2017 18:56
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
Frescomexico wrote:
In the WSJ article below Steve Koonin suggests the "Red Team" approach to "Put the 'consensus' to a test....

Wall Street Journal says science ain't science enough. Nah.... just the AGW denier liar whiner right wing, thinkin' they can politicalize science.
22-04-2017 22:03
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
litesong wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
In the WSJ article below Steve Koonin suggests the "Red Team" approach to "Put the 'consensus' to a test....

Wall Street Journal says science ain't science enough. Nah.... just the AGW denier liar whiner right wing, thinkin' they can politicalize science.


Maybe I misread the article but I don't believe it says "science ain't science enough". The point is that, with the peer review system, only the publisher knows who these peers are and what their reviews said. Were these reviewers from both sides of the debate? How thorough were their reviews? Was there an AGW denier liar whiner among them? We don't know because it is opaque. The "Red Team" approach would make all of this transparent.
Edited on 22-04-2017 22:04
23-04-2017 09:28
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Frescomexico wrote:
In the WSJ article below Steve Koonin suggests the "Red Team" approach to "Put the 'consensus' to a test, and improve public understanding, th[r]ough an open and adversarial process." What do you think?


https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-red-team-exercise-would-strengthen-climate-science-1492728579


Yes that would be a good start.

Can we have penalties when somebody is found to be lying as well. From whichever side.
23-04-2017 12:45
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
In the WSJ article below Steve Koonin suggests the "Red Team" approach to "Put the 'consensus' to a test, and improve public understanding, th[r]ough an open and adversarial process." What do you think?


https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-red-team-exercise-would-strengthen-climate-science-1492728579


Yes that would be a good start.

Can we have penalties when somebody is found to be lying as well. From whichever side.


But, alas, many scientists, especially those in the "IPCC consensus", do not want their reviews exposed.
23-04-2017 14:35
spot
★★★★☆
(1087)
Bleeding edge research will turn out to be wrong on occasion.

If a researcher is found to be outright lying its already bad for that researcher.

Do these penalties just apply to climate science or everybody. like the controversy over whether planet IX exists or not, if we fail to discover it do we throw Chad Trujillo and Scott S. Sheppard in jail, if it turns up do we throw the critics of that theory in jail.

And what body would decide if the scientific claims were lies or not and how?

I can't see how this would help advance science.

Does this just apply to scientists? Lets say some ignorant moron told me that the peaks of the Andes were above the stratosphere could I have that idiot locked up?
23-04-2017 15:02
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"AGW denier liar whiner frenziedmex" muffed: Maybe I misread the article....

Of course you misread Wall Street "sigh-ants" & you don't want to understand science. Oil, energy, business & re-pubic-lick-un think tanks (the same as non-think tanks) have been working for decades to deny AGW science. Oil, energy, business & re-pubic-lick-un think tanks (the same as non-think tanks) now believe they have power to overwhelm actual science results with the AGW denial liar whining PR propaganda poop. "Don'T rump" has stopped science in the U.S. & replaced it with "sigh-ants" denial, lies, & lots of whining.
& you eat the PR propaganda poop.... with relish, without relish & say yum as the PR propaganda poop slides down your mental consumption pipes.
23-04-2017 20:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9602)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
In the WSJ article below Steve Koonin suggests the "Red Team" approach to "Put the 'consensus' to a test, and improve public understanding, th[r]ough an open and adversarial process." What do you think?


https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-red-team-exercise-would-strengthen-climate-science-1492728579


Yes that would be a good start.

Can we have penalties when somebody is found to be lying as well. From whichever side.


Who decides the penalties? You??? The government??? And how do they determine if someone is 'lying'? You??? The government???

Oh THATS's going to end well.

Fortunately, there is already a method in place to determine if a theory is a scientific one or not. It's called the test for falsification. All theories of science must be falsifiable. That means the null hypothesis of the theory, which comes from the model of that theory must be tested to try to break that theory.

Otherwise is simply isn't science.

Data can be verified too, as long as you have the raw data available, the description of the instrumentation that was used to collect it, the purpose of collecting it, who collected it, when it was collected, and why.

A good solid understanding of statistics and probability math helps also. It keeps the riffraff summaries out.

If you lock up someone for doing bad math in statistics, you'll have to lock up almost every politician, government bureaucrat, gambler, and climate 'scientist'.

The problem isn't liars in science. The problem is widespread illiteracy.


The Parrot Killer
23-04-2017 21:48
spot
★★★★☆
(1087)
Into the Night wrote:

Who decides the penalties? You??? The government??? And how do they determine if someone is 'lying'? You??? The government???

Oh THATS's going to end well.




I agree with ITN on something, I need to have a wash.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
24-04-2017 01:06
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: And how do they determine if someone is 'lying'? You??? The government???

At least you didn't mention AGW denier liar whiners should make determinations. Even "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner bluffer badnight" doesn't have THAT MUCH SASS!!!
24-04-2017 01:18
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"AGW denier liar whiner tipped the leakey plunger" puffed: Can we have penalties when somebody is found to be lying as well.

Ah.... "AGW denier liar whiner tipped the leaky plunger" now understands that AGW denier liar whiners have to get more billionaire AGW denier liar whiners to pay the penalties.
24-04-2017 03:31
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
In the WSJ article below Steve Koonin suggests the "Red Team" approach to "Put the 'consensus' to a test, and improve public understanding, th[r]ough an open and adversarial process." What do you think?


https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-red-team-exercise-would-strengthen-climate-science-1492728579


Yes that would be a good start.

Can we have penalties when somebody is found to be lying as well. From whichever side.


I think that would be a bad idea. It would just attract lawyers with their litigious fingers messing up productive debate. Lawyers have weaseled their way into enough areas of our life as it is.
24-04-2017 11:51
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Frescomexico wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
In the WSJ article below Steve Koonin suggests the "Red Team" approach to "Put the 'consensus' to a test, and improve public understanding, th[r]ough an open and adversarial process." What do you think?


https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-red-team-exercise-would-strengthen-climate-science-1492728579


Yes that would be a good start.

Can we have penalties when somebody is found to be lying as well. From whichever side.


I think that would be a bad idea. It would just attract lawyers with their litigious fingers messing up productive debate. Lawyers have weaseled their way into enough areas of our life as it is.


Given that I would need the level to be that of being able to demonstrate that the person lying knew that they were lying, not just got it worng, it would be a very difficult task to prove.

I am a plumber, if I fit a gas cooker in a house and the gas fire then kills somebody 3 months later I go to jail. I have to check all gas appliances in the house if I do any work in that house.

Why should science not have any legal responsibility?
24-04-2017 11:53
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
In the WSJ article below Steve Koonin suggests the "Red Team" approach to "Put the 'consensus' to a test, and improve public understanding, th[r]ough an open and adversarial process." What do you think?


https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-red-team-exercise-would-strengthen-climate-science-1492728579


Yes that would be a good start.

Can we have penalties when somebody is found to be lying as well. From whichever side.


Who decides the penalties? You??? The government??? And how do they determine if someone is 'lying'? You??? The government???

Oh THATS's going to end well.

Fortunately, there is already a method in place to determine if a theory is a scientific one or not. It's called the test for falsification. All theories of science must be falsifiable. That means the null hypothesis of the theory, which comes from the model of that theory must be tested to try to break that theory.

Otherwise is simply isn't science.

Data can be verified too, as long as you have the raw data available, the description of the instrumentation that was used to collect it, the purpose of collecting it, who collected it, when it was collected, and why.

A good solid understanding of statistics and probability math helps also. It keeps the riffraff summaries out.

If you lock up someone for doing bad math in statistics, you'll have to lock up almost every politician, government bureaucrat, gambler, and climate 'scientist'.

The problem isn't liars in science. The problem is widespread illiteracy.


Courts alread do this sort of judgemnt every single time they hear a case.

This would not have impact on faseability. It would not have any impact where proper, honest sceice was being done. Being wrong would not attract any penalties.

Saying that there was link between working with asbestos and lung cancer and falsifying the cause of death on the death certificates would send you to jail.
24-04-2017 17:31
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
In the WSJ article below Steve Koonin suggests the "Red Team" approach to "Put the 'consensus' to a test, and improve public understanding, th[r]ough an open and adversarial process." What do you think?


https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-red-team-exercise-would-strengthen-climate-science-1492728579


Yes that would be a good start.

Can we have penalties when somebody is found to be lying as well. From whichever side.


Who decides the penalties? You??? The government??? And how do they determine if someone is 'lying'? You??? The government???

Oh THATS's going to end well.

Fortunately, there is already a method in place to determine if a theory is a scientific one or not. It's called the test for falsification. All theories of science must be falsifiable. That means the null hypothesis of the theory, which comes from the model of that theory must be tested to try to break that theory.

Otherwise is simply isn't science.

Data can be verified too, as long as you have the raw data available, the description of the instrumentation that was used to collect it, the purpose of collecting it, who collected it, when it was collected, and why.

A good solid understanding of statistics and probability math helps also. It keeps the riffraff summaries out.

If you lock up someone for doing bad math in statistics, you'll have to lock up almost every politician, government bureaucrat, gambler, and climate 'scientist'.

The problem isn't liars in science. The problem is widespread illiteracy.


Courts alread do this sort of judgemnt every single time they hear a case.

This would not have impact on faseability. It would not have any impact where proper, honest sceice was being done. Being wrong would not attract any penalties.

Saying that there was link between working with asbestos and lung cancer and falsifying the cause of death on the death certificates would send you to jail.


I guess I have no problem where there is deliberate falsification. Do you think that happens very often?
24-04-2017 17:52
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"AGW denier liar whiner tipped the leaky plunger" plugged: Courts alread(sic) do this sort of judgemnt(sic) every single time they hear a case. faseability(sic).....sceice(sic)....

Courts haven't the science to determine scientific lying... 'cept when AGW denier liar whiner scientists sell their souls to oil, coal, energy & business PR propaganda poop.
24-04-2017 17:55
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"AGW denier liar whiner frenziedmex" muffed: I guess I have no problem where there is deliberate falsification. Do you think that happens very often?

"AGW denier liar whiner muffing frenziedmex" proves it is an AGW denier liar whiner, when it ASKS AGW denier liar whiners if AGW scientists lie.
Edited on 24-04-2017 17:58
24-04-2017 18:01
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Frescomexico wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
In the WSJ article below Steve Koonin suggests the "Red Team" approach to "Put the 'consensus' to a test, and improve public understanding, th[r]ough an open and adversarial process." What do you think?


https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-red-team-exercise-would-strengthen-climate-science-1492728579


Yes that would be a good start.

Can we have penalties when somebody is found to be lying as well. From whichever side.


Who decides the penalties? You??? The government??? And how do they determine if someone is 'lying'? You??? The government???

Oh THATS's going to end well.

Fortunately, there is already a method in place to determine if a theory is a scientific one or not. It's called the test for falsification. All theories of science must be falsifiable. That means the null hypothesis of the theory, which comes from the model of that theory must be tested to try to break that theory.

Otherwise is simply isn't science.

Data can be verified too, as long as you have the raw data available, the description of the instrumentation that was used to collect it, the purpose of collecting it, who collected it, when it was collected, and why.

A good solid understanding of statistics and probability math helps also. It keeps the riffraff summaries out.

If you lock up someone for doing bad math in statistics, you'll have to lock up almost every politician, government bureaucrat, gambler, and climate 'scientist'.

The problem isn't liars in science. The problem is widespread illiteracy.


Courts alread do this sort of judgemnt every single time they hear a case.

This would not have impact on faseability. It would not have any impact where proper, honest sceice was being done. Being wrong would not attract any penalties.

Saying that there was link between working with asbestos and lung cancer and falsifying the cause of death on the death certificates would send you to jail.


I guess I have no problem where there is deliberate falsification. Do you think that happens very often?

I don't think it happens very often, but it does happen; see this list:

Scientific misconduct - Notable individual cases

The consequences of getting caught are generally already pretty severe though, typically career-ending.
Edited on 24-04-2017 18:02
24-04-2017 18:43
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Frescomexico wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
In the WSJ article below Steve Koonin suggests the "Red Team" approach to "Put the 'consensus' to a test, and improve public understanding, th[r]ough an open and adversarial process." What do you think?


https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-red-team-exercise-would-strengthen-climate-science-1492728579


Yes that would be a good start.

Can we have penalties when somebody is found to be lying as well. From whichever side.


Who decides the penalties? You??? The government??? And how do they determine if someone is 'lying'? You??? The government???

Oh THATS's going to end well.

Fortunately, there is already a method in place to determine if a theory is a scientific one or not. It's called the test for falsification. All theories of science must be falsifiable. That means the null hypothesis of the theory, which comes from the model of that theory must be tested to try to break that theory.

Otherwise is simply isn't science.

Data can be verified too, as long as you have the raw data available, the description of the instrumentation that was used to collect it, the purpose of collecting it, who collected it, when it was collected, and why.

A good solid understanding of statistics and probability math helps also. It keeps the riffraff summaries out.

If you lock up someone for doing bad math in statistics, you'll have to lock up almost every politician, government bureaucrat, gambler, and climate 'scientist'.

The problem isn't liars in science. The problem is widespread illiteracy.


Courts alread do this sort of judgemnt every single time they hear a case.

This would not have impact on faseability. It would not have any impact where proper, honest sceice was being done. Being wrong would not attract any penalties.

Saying that there was link between working with asbestos and lung cancer and falsifying the cause of death on the death certificates would send you to jail.


I guess I have no problem where there is deliberate falsification. Do you think that happens very often?


Not often but when it does it is the most powerful of cons.

The example currently of NASA saying that Greenland is losing ice whilst it is clear with a tiny amount of maths that ice is accumulating on Greenland would be a start.

Edited on 24-04-2017 19:34
24-04-2017 18:44
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
litesong wrote:
"AGW denier liar whiner frenziedmex" muffed: I guess I have no problem where there is deliberate falsification. Do you think that happens very often?

"AGW denier liar whiner muffing frenziedmex" proves it is an AGW denier liar whiner, when it ASKS AGW denier liar whiners if AGW scientists lie.


So litethinker, you would have no problem with such a law then?
24-04-2017 19:21
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Frescomexico wrote:
In the WSJ article below Steve Koonin suggests the "Red Team" approach to "Put the 'consensus' to a test, and improve public understanding, th[r]ough an open and adversarial process." What do you think?


https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-red-team-exercise-would-strengthen-climate-science-1492728579


Most fools do not understand that one man being right overrules 1000 being wrong. I have earned my living being right more than 90% of the time.

In the cases I was wrong I was generally agreeing with the group.
24-04-2017 20:01
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
In the WSJ article below Steve Koonin suggests the "Red Team" approach to "Put the 'consensus' to a test, and improve public understanding, th[r]ough an open and adversarial process." What do you think?


https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-red-team-exercise-would-strengthen-climate-science-1492728579


Yes that would be a good start.

Can we have penalties when somebody is found to be lying as well. From whichever side.


Who decides the penalties? You??? The government??? And how do they determine if someone is 'lying'? You??? The government???

Oh THATS's going to end well.

Fortunately, there is already a method in place to determine if a theory is a scientific one or not. It's called the test for falsification. All theories of science must be falsifiable. That means the null hypothesis of the theory, which comes from the model of that theory must be tested to try to break that theory.

Otherwise is simply isn't science.

Data can be verified too, as long as you have the raw data available, the description of the instrumentation that was used to collect it, the purpose of collecting it, who collected it, when it was collected, and why.

A good solid understanding of statistics and probability math helps also. It keeps the riffraff summaries out.

If you lock up someone for doing bad math in statistics, you'll have to lock up almost every politician, government bureaucrat, gambler, and climate 'scientist'.

The problem isn't liars in science. The problem is widespread illiteracy.


Courts alread do this sort of judgemnt every single time they hear a case.

This would not have impact on faseability. It would not have any impact where proper, honest sceice was being done. Being wrong would not attract any penalties.

Saying that there was link between working with asbestos and lung cancer and falsifying the cause of death on the death certificates would send you to jail.


I guess I have no problem where there is deliberate falsification. Do you think that happens very often?


Not often but when it does it is the most powerful of cons.

The example currently of NASA saying that Greenland is losing ice whilst it is clear with a tiny amount of maths that ice is accumulating on Greenland would be a start.

Getting away with faking the moon landings has clearly gone to their heads. Moon rocks, schmoon rocks. We KNOW the moon is made of green cheese. Otherwise, what would the moon mice eat?????? TELL ME THAT!!!!!!
24-04-2017 20:11
spot
★★★★☆
(1087)
Surface Detail wrote:

Getting away with faking the moon landings has clearly gone to their heads. Moon rocks, schmoon rocks. We KNOW the moon is made of green cheese. Otherwise, what would the moon mice eat?????? TELL ME THAT!!!!!!


Moon mice?

We have pictures



When did NASA know?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
24-04-2017 20:17
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
spot wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:

Getting away with faking the moon landings has clearly gone to their heads. Moon rocks, schmoon rocks. We KNOW the moon is made of green cheese. Otherwise, what would the moon mice eat?????? TELL ME THAT!!!!!!


Moon mice?

We have pictures



When did NASA know?

Indeed. NASA clearly has some questions to answer. We deserve the truth!
27-04-2017 22:54
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"AGW denier liar whiner tipped the leaky plunger" plugged: So litesong, you would have no problem with such a law then?

A law allowing Judge Judy to legislate against AGW denier liar whiners big time. I'd love to see Judge Judy turned loose on AGW denier liar whiners. AGW denier liar whiners would have to get AGW denier liar whiner billionaires & re-pubic-lick-uns to pay the really big assessments for BIG ASS AGW DENIER LIAR WHINER LIES. Then sic Judge Judy on "Don'T rump" for allowing BIG POLLUTERS into the National Monuments.... big big really big fines!!!! Did I say, "big big really big fines?" Yes, I did say "BIG BIG REALLY BIG FINES."
28-04-2017 01:47
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
WOW, I have been out of the USA too long. A proposal to make scientific paper reviews more transparent immediately morphed into a who-do-we-sue frenzy. Here in Mexico, if you step into an open manhole (person hole in the US), lo siento, you should have watched were you were going!

I just have this suspicion, with no evidence, that these peers are a bunch of cronies that are moving climate science in a predetermined direction. The Red Team approach would at least make this more difficult and would allow science to move more quickly to a defensible theory.
Edited on 28-04-2017 02:00
28-04-2017 10:49
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Frescomexico wrote:
WOW, I have been out of the USA too long. A proposal to make scientific paper reviews more transparent immediately morphed into a who-do-we-sue frenzy. Here in Mexico, if you step into an open manhole (person hole in the US), lo siento, you should have watched were you were going!

I just have this suspicion, with no evidence, that these peers are a bunch of cronies that are moving climate science in a predetermined direction. The Red Team approach would at least make this more difficult and would allow science to move more quickly to a defensible theory.


I fully agree.

'twas I who brought the idea of making science legally responsible to the extent of not being able to lie.

It is also not a who do we sue but the same sort of thing as any criminal act. The state does the legal work generally.

I find it very interesting that almost all sides of the debate wish it to never have any sort of elimination of bogus drivel or penalties for lying. The endless shouting seems to be the whole purpose of it.

Meanwhile tens of millions of people die each year due to the use of food as fuel.
28-04-2017 13:00
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
WOW, I have been out of the USA too long. A proposal to make scientific paper reviews more transparent immediately morphed into a who-do-we-sue frenzy. Here in Mexico, if you step into an open manhole (person hole in the US), lo siento, you should have watched were you were going!

I just have this suspicion, with no evidence, that these peers are a bunch of cronies that are moving climate science in a predetermined direction. The Red Team approach would at least make this more difficult and would allow science to move more quickly to a defensible theory.


I fully agree.

'twas I who brought the idea of making science legally responsible to the extent of not being able to lie.

It is also not a who do we sue but the same sort of thing as any criminal act. The state does the legal work generally.

I find it very interesting that almost all sides of the debate wish it to never have any sort of elimination of bogus drivel or penalties for lying. The endless shouting seems to be the whole purpose of it.

Meanwhile tens of millions of people die each year due to the use of food as fuel.


I understand, and "climategate" taught us that there are a number of these conspirators in climate science. However, I notice that virtually all of these bad actors are still in business. Congress and parliament took a cursory look at them and moved on. Maybe they thought that what they did was for a good cause: AGW reduction.

I just thought that if they knew that everyone was watching, they would be less likely to try to steer science toward a political objective.
28-04-2017 15:50
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Frescomexico wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
WOW, I have been out of the USA too long. A proposal to make scientific paper reviews more transparent immediately morphed into a who-do-we-sue frenzy. Here in Mexico, if you step into an open manhole (person hole in the US), lo siento, you should have watched were you were going!

I just have this suspicion, with no evidence, that these peers are a bunch of cronies that are moving climate science in a predetermined direction. The Red Team approach would at least make this more difficult and would allow science to move more quickly to a defensible theory.


I fully agree.

'twas I who brought the idea of making science legally responsible to the extent of not being able to lie.

It is also not a who do we sue but the same sort of thing as any criminal act. The state does the legal work generally.

I find it very interesting that almost all sides of the debate wish it to never have any sort of elimination of bogus drivel or penalties for lying. The endless shouting seems to be the whole purpose of it.

Meanwhile tens of millions of people die each year due to the use of food as fuel.


I understand, and "climategate" taught us that there are a number of these conspirators in climate science. However, I notice that virtually all of these bad actors are still in business. Congress and parliament took a cursory look at them and moved on. Maybe they thought that what they did was for a good cause: AGW reduction.

I just thought that if they knew that everyone was watching, they would be less likely to try to steer science toward a political objective.

I suppose it would be churlish of me to point out that there have been eight separate inquiries into so-called "climategate", none of which found any evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.
28-04-2017 16:38
spot
★★★★☆
(1087)
Surface Detail wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
WOW, I have been out of the USA too long. A proposal to make scientific paper reviews more transparent immediately morphed into a who-do-we-sue frenzy. Here in Mexico, if you step into an open manhole (person hole in the US), lo siento, you should have watched were you were going!

I just have this suspicion, with no evidence, that these peers are a bunch of cronies that are moving climate science in a predetermined direction. The Red Team approach would at least make this more difficult and would allow science to move more quickly to a defensible theory.


I fully agree.

'twas I who brought the idea of making science legally responsible to the extent of not being able to lie.

It is also not a who do we sue but the same sort of thing as any criminal act. The state does the legal work generally.

I find it very interesting that almost all sides of the debate wish it to never have any sort of elimination of bogus drivel or penalties for lying. The endless shouting seems to be the whole purpose of it.

Meanwhile tens of millions of people die each year due to the use of food as fuel.


I understand, and "climategate" taught us that there are a number of these conspirators in climate science. However, I notice that virtually all of these bad actors are still in business. Congress and parliament took a cursory look at them and moved on. Maybe they thought that what they did was for a good cause: AGW reduction.

I just thought that if they knew that everyone was watching, they would be less likely to try to steer science toward a political objective.

I suppose it would be churlish of me to point out that there have been eight separate inquiries into so-called "climategate", none of which found any evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.


What actually happened or not is irrelevant to the climate debate forum. All that matters is that an insinuation gets repeated hopefully people will start to believe it.

Could you imagine if people started doing something about climate change, we might accidentally get renewable energy and clean air and we can't have that.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
28-04-2017 16:57
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Frescomexico wrote:
WOW, I have been out of the USA too long. A proposal to make scientific paper reviews more transparent immediately morphed into a who-do-we-sue frenzy. Here in Mexico, if you step into an open manhole (person hole in the US), lo siento, you should have watched were you were going!

I just have this suspicion, with no evidence, that these peers are a bunch of cronies that are moving climate science in a predetermined direction. The Red Team approach would at least make this more difficult and would allow science to move more quickly to a defensible theory.


I don't believe building any sort of mechanism to lean to either side of the case is scientific in any way. The entire problem we've had is that Obama used the government agencies to force a point of view that did now jibe with science. Taking the opposite stance isn't any different - just in the opposite direction.
28-04-2017 17:37
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
WOW, I have been out of the USA too long. A proposal to make scientific paper reviews more transparent immediately morphed into a who-do-we-sue frenzy. Here in Mexico, if you step into an open manhole (person hole in the US), lo siento, you should have watched were you were going!

I just have this suspicion, with no evidence, that these peers are a bunch of cronies that are moving climate science in a predetermined direction. The Red Team approach would at least make this more difficult and would allow science to move more quickly to a defensible theory.


I fully agree.

'twas I who brought the idea of making science legally responsible to the extent of not being able to lie.

It is also not a who do we sue but the same sort of thing as any criminal act. The state does the legal work generally.

I find it very interesting that almost all sides of the debate wish it to never have any sort of elimination of bogus drivel or penalties for lying. The endless shouting seems to be the whole purpose of it.

Meanwhile tens of millions of people die each year due to the use of food as fuel.


I understand, and "climategate" taught us that there are a number of these conspirators in climate science. However, I notice that virtually all of these bad actors are still in business. Congress and parliament took a cursory look at them and moved on. Maybe they thought that what they did was for a good cause: AGW reduction.

I just thought that if they knew that everyone was watching, they would be less likely to try to steer science toward a political objective.

I suppose it would be churlish of me to point out that there have been eight separate inquiries into so-called "climategate", none of which found any evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.


What actually happened or not is irrelevant to the climate debate forum. All that matters is that an insinuation gets repeated hopefully people will start to believe it.

Could you imagine if people started doing something about climate change, we might accidentally get renewable energy and clean air and we can't have that.


Exactly what occurred to you that you began thinking? Or did you. What do you suppose could be done about getting "renewable energy"?

In order to explain this I have many, many times gone over the numbers but you and the other True Believers didn't wish to believe.

The San Francisco bay area is one of the most idea places in the world for the generation of "renewable energy". The Sun shine through cloudless skies for the better part of the year and it is unusual to get wind speeds too high or too low.

Pacific Gas and Electric had facilities for satisfying 22% of it'e peak demand through solar, wind, biomass, small scale hydroelectric and geothermal energy.

Solar and wind comprised half of that.

You can't even find the truth any more under the propaganda that PG&E has dumped on the market.

And that truth is that the Sun only produces power 4 hours a day ideally.

Though winds are better here than most places they are still inadequate for most of the year. While it was plain to see with the older smaller windmills since they were not turning most of the time it is harder to see on the new 120 blade-span windmills because they simply turn all the time because it is too difficult to accelerate them from a dead stop. So people see them turning and assume they're making power. They aren't most of the time. There is insufficient power in the wind to draw much power from it without slamming the brakes on the windmill and stopping it. So for the most part they are freerunning.

PG&E claims 22% renewable energy but solar and wind only ACTUALLY delivered 3% in 2015 - a drought year with cloudless skies all year and fairly good winds. Most years it would be 2%.

There are almost no other places in the US that could do any better. Every acre of land that is covered with solar cells is an acre of land taken out of food production. Every acre of land covered with windmills is taken out of food production as well since even cattle won't graze beneath the noise of a windmill. And the rest of the commercial food animals are grown in a different manner. Cattle a mile away from the old smaller windmills wouldn't fatten up properly and were always nervous. Less than half of those windmills were in production at any moment and most of the time they were all stopped.

If you believe for one second that there can be any significant increase in the use of solar or wind power in this country you don't have any experience with it. Most of the people that work with it say that the only reason that PG&E deals with it is because they gain fat tax subsidies.

Gas driven turbo-electric facilities could be placed right in the middle of a residential area and most people wouldn't even know they were there they are so quiet and so efficient. Coal contains more energy than any other source of fossil fuel and larger generators further from population centers would ideally product energy with the most efficient source. The latest generator technology doesn't release smoke as the older did.

If you limit energy to renewables that means you are wishing for the poor to live in the dark and cold. That is the sort of attitude of people who are living in their mother's basement and those living on an inheritance.




Join the debate Would the "Red Team" Approach Be An Improvement Over Peer Review?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Why we won't approach the real reason behind climate change.6819-08-2019 07:18
The right approach1917-05-2019 10:24
US report contradicts Trump team: Warming mostly man-made7018-11-2017 09:59
Red Sun Images in England323-10-2017 20:54
Peer-reviewed science papers showing sea level rise015-02-2011 02:57
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact