Posts
If they know enough about the field, then their repetition of the experiment will either confirm or contradict the original findings.
If it contradicts, then real scientists sit down and say, "That's odd, what did we do different from each other that yielded these differing results?" Real scientists want to find out why the results varied.
This cycle repeats until nobody bothers doing the experiment anymore because EVERYONE is getting the same results. The reason there is no debate about what happens when I apply flame to hydrogen gas in Earth's atmosphere is that ANYONE can do the experiment and it ALWAYS comes out the same. To replicate some of these experiments, one needs a lot more education than I have, but those people do exist and they are trying to replicate the experiments.
What you do not do, if you are a scientist, is censure the work of those who have come up with results that differ from yours. You do not hide the data. You do not hide your methodology. You do not manipulate the editorial board of the magazines that publish the peer-reviews in your field. If you do all of that you are no longer a scientist, you are an ideologue. This is the tactic of religion, not science.
If two scientists working with the same data and methodology get different results, then something is not accounted for. In the recent CRU scandal, what was not accounted for was the original researchers were lying. They literally made up the data and adjusted the methodology to fit their conclusion; one should not be shocked when honest researchers took what the CRU SAID was their data and methods and got different results. The key change here is HONEST.
It turns out that I was overestimating (link down the memory hole) the scientific integrity of the East Anglia Climate "Research" Unit. And I say that having already compared them, unfavorably I remind you, to the hoaxers behind Piltdown Man.
As the linked article demonstrates, the CRU is simply unable to respond to requests for their raw data. Because that data no longer exists. How could such a thing be possible, you may ask. Suddenly obsolete file formats? Fire in the archives? An idiot with an electromagnet? No, nothing so innocent. The real reason is that they deliberately threw it in the garbage, sometime in the 1980s.
No comments:
Post a Comment
You are a guest here when you comment. This is my soapbox, not yours. Be polite. Inappropriate comments will be deleted without mention. Amnesty period is expired.
Do not go off on a tangent, stay with the topic of the post. If I can't tell what your point is in the first couple of sentences I'm flushing it.
If you're trying to comment anonymously: You can't. Log into your Google account.
If you can't comprehend this, don't comment; because I'm going to moderate and mock you for wasting your time.