An attack on all of science, that sounds about right. Science should always be under attack. It seems to me, science has always worked that way. Truly revolutionary ideas did not arise without strenuous defense of the status quo and the upstart new ideas.
Science has never been about the absolute truth. That is more appropriately pursued within the realms of religion. Science should be about the objective (repeatable) observations and synthesis of unifying concepts that allow a particular level of predictability, and above all it must be falsifiable. If either observations or concepts are challenged it must be a through the ability to falsify the original understanding.
It seems our understanding of climate science is far from complete, based on that observation, nothing should be left unchallenged, if our understanding is to have a chance to evolve towards something better. The most obvious example, and, most easily challenged, is the modelling of such a complex and chaotic system. The predictions of these models are there for everyone to see. They have not been stellar, even with the range of models that have been considered. the predictions do not even provide a good error bar of the observations. This is on top of the fact, that, the observations, are neither complete or well isolated.
Ah, this is just a bit of frustrated ranting, better presented by so many others. This type of thin skinned scientists reaction towards criticism is just so anti-science that it makes me wonder if we are headlong towards a neo-darkage. The need of settling the situation by court is so reminiscent of the inquisition during the middle ages.
The odds were stacked against Steyn. Mann was having all his legal costs paid for by some unknown benefactor(s) and a trial jury in ultra-liberal Washington DC was bound to be packed with Mann sympathisers. John O’Sullivan of PSI/TNT Radio helped his friend Dr Tim Bell to litigate successfully against Mann and thinks that Steyn went about his case the wrong way: https://principia-scientific.com/far-left-court-awards-dr-michael-mann-one-dollar-in-steyn-libel-case/.
I think that everyone who believes that the process of science is about asking searching questions in open and honest debate should be troubled by this.
People who resort to, or who threaten to resort to, legal action to resolve scientific questions are beneath contempt.
If such strategies succeed, all the advances that real science, engineering and medicine have made will be lost and we can look forward to another 1000 years of ideological persecution and darkness.
I might be wrong, but my brief reading on the case, it never judges whether climate science is right or wrong, it judged on whether you can attack someone based on their beliefs? So either side of the interpretation of science should be able to voice their views.
An attack on all of science, that sounds about right. Science should always be under attack. It seems to me, science has always worked that way. Truly revolutionary ideas did not arise without strenuous defense of the status quo and the upstart new ideas.
Science has never been about the absolute truth. That is more appropriately pursued within the realms of religion. Science should be about the objective (repeatable) observations and synthesis of unifying concepts that allow a particular level of predictability, and above all it must be falsifiable. If either observations or concepts are challenged it must be a through the ability to falsify the original understanding.
It seems our understanding of climate science is far from complete, based on that observation, nothing should be left unchallenged, if our understanding is to have a chance to evolve towards something better. The most obvious example, and, most easily challenged, is the modelling of such a complex and chaotic system. The predictions of these models are there for everyone to see. They have not been stellar, even with the range of models that have been considered. the predictions do not even provide a good error bar of the observations. This is on top of the fact, that, the observations, are neither complete or well isolated.
Ah, this is just a bit of frustrated ranting, better presented by so many others. This type of thin skinned scientists reaction towards criticism is just so anti-science that it makes me wonder if we are headlong towards a neo-darkage. The need of settling the situation by court is so reminiscent of the inquisition during the middle ages.
The odds were stacked against Steyn. Mann was having all his legal costs paid for by some unknown benefactor(s) and a trial jury in ultra-liberal Washington DC was bound to be packed with Mann sympathisers. John O’Sullivan of PSI/TNT Radio helped his friend Dr Tim Bell to litigate successfully against Mann and thinks that Steyn went about his case the wrong way: https://principia-scientific.com/far-left-court-awards-dr-michael-mann-one-dollar-in-steyn-libel-case/.
I think that everyone who believes that the process of science is about asking searching questions in open and honest debate should be troubled by this.
People who resort to, or who threaten to resort to, legal action to resolve scientific questions are beneath contempt.
If such strategies succeed, all the advances that real science, engineering and medicine have made will be lost and we can look forward to another 1000 years of ideological persecution and darkness.
I might be wrong, but my brief reading on the case, it never judges whether climate science is right or wrong, it judged on whether you can attack someone based on their beliefs? So either side of the interpretation of science should be able to voice their views.
Mann certainly doesn't see it that way.