|
4/3 |
2004/1/3 [Science/Space, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:11651 Activity:nil |
1/2 Aliens Cause Global Warming by Michael Crichton http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1050644/posts \_ <snore> \_ i think SETI is a seriously premature attempt. Of all the possible things to search for, SETI choses to search at the most likely signal, which is in fact extremely unlikely, consider that there are SO MANY altneratives. i propose a model for deciding how to run government projects: give the rational researcher his money. see if he'd rather spend it right now on his research or put it in some fund with return X to and see how long he will wait for the available technology to mature before undertaking his endeaver with this appreciating captial. \_ this guy doesn't understands neither public policy nor science. what is his bullshit railing about "concensus science"? the ONLY way occam's razor can work is by concensus. \_ You misspelled consensus. Also, you seem to have problems understanding the essence of occam's razor, namely that the simplest, rather than most popular, explanation is best. That there may or may not be a consensus on the simplest explanation is completely irrelevant. \_ I shouldn't be suprised you guys all hate science. After all, scientists all hate sysadmins, so turnabout is fair play i guess. |
4/3 |
|
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1050644/posts Post Reply Private Reply To 1 View Replies To: Always Right Of course global warning is junk science . The most meaningful bit is Crichtons proposal for the separation of science and policy. Money graphs: Just as we have established a tradition of double-blinded research to determine drug efficacy, we must institute double-blinded research in other policy areas as well. Certainly the increased use of computer models, such as GCMs, cries out for the separation of those who make the models from those who verify them. The fact is that the present structure of science is entrepeneurial, with individual investigative teams vying for funding from organizations which all too often have a clear stake in the outcome of the research-or appear to, which may be just as bad. Sooner or later, we must form an independent research institute in this country. It must be funded by industry, by government, and by private philanthropy, both individuals and trusts. The money must be pooled, so that investigators do not know who is paying them. The institute must fund more than one team to do research in a particular area, and the verification of results will be a foregone requirement: teams will know their results will be checked by other groups. In many cases, those who decide how to gather the data will not gather it, and those who gather the data will not analyze it. If we were to address the land temperature records with such rigor, we would be well on our way to an understanding of exactly how much faith we can place in global warming, and therefore what seriousness we must address this. |