Baron von Lotsov

Yes I know what you mean by strawman. I'm old school though so when I see someone in his position I expect a certain amount, such as they have not made basic mistakes. We all do this to a certain degree, e.g. you don't go and add up all the numbers on your bank statement each month because you assume the person programming the machine is at least reasonably competent. That does not account for fraudulent action but traditionally in science there has only been one motivation and that is pursuit of the truth, meaning all the scientists are on the same side in the first place.

It's like the Hippocratic oath of a doctor and that's how it has been until recently. If he has done this to trick people then he won't be regarded very highly by his peers for much longer, much like a doctor who purposefully tries to make someone worse rather than better. So I assume he has grounds for it and I expect him to publish a paper unless of course on further inspection he finds something wrong with his work.

This is why scientists talk to one another and if they all had Clippo's attitude they would never get anywhere. It's unreasonable to suppose the best way to do science is to do it all in secret until you have the correct answer because people are far more effective working together and when someone is too frightened in making a mistake to ever say anything in the first place then what good is that? Even if his method has fault it might be taken and modified into something useful, such is the way of creative thought and scientific thought has a degree of creativity about it. You invent a new process out of nothing and that is how it is done.

__________________
"A government big enough to supply you with everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have..."

Clippo

BVL wrote:-
I’m trying hard to not make this an insult BVL but I sense some naivety and a sense of ‘la vie en Rose’ here.

An extract from a recent Realclimate article :-

Scientists with varying views DON’T ‘talk’ to each other much – although scientists with similar views probably do. Even with similar views, they are all motivated by self-esteem, looking for the main chance, and slug it out with each other over publications and conferences etc. All want that moment of victory, that accolade from peers of being right.
Yes, they all seek the truth – the truth as they think it is.

As in love & war, the ’winner gets all’

That is where progress comes from – the eventual dominance of one set of ideas over another.

Furthermore, it is not just in science. Almost in any walk of life, if you express an opinion which you can’t back up with convincing arguments, there will be someone itching to burst your bubble.

Now, in GW circles, a history of bad blood has grown up, in my view due to the ‘perversion’ of science by the likes of the Climate Coalition (Exxon). Spencer has been identified as a recipient of Exxon cash and is a self reported Creationist.
Is it small wonder that his views should be scrutinised & he should attract vituperation, having such a provenance?

In your specific case, I don’t know your age or circumstances (& I’ve no real desire to pry). However, my impression is that you are ‘young’ (define it how you will) & all I was suggesting to you was that if you take sides in an antagonistic debate, you are fair game to become an intellectual casualty – think with your brain, not with your guts.

Baron von Lotsov

Clippo

I'm no spring chicken and I have seen all examples of scientists and indeed read scientists going back hundreds of years, so I see what makes what. I'm mainly inspired by what makes good science so I am drawn to the ways of people who have really achieved something. Look at the way they work and you will find they will look at everything and most interestingly they are the most against this ranking business, anyone with a good idea will grab their attention or even if it is an idea that is in some way related to something that can indicate a novel solution. It's all about originality and removing yourself from social norms and asking what if this or what if that. Shots in the dark effectively since their work has not been mapped out before and there are not conventions.

You look at the work of Einstein and you will see many mistakes and some quite foolish stuff but he was not the kind of person where it bothered him. He was not climbing up some corporate career ladder and so he could be a free thinker and obviously it is what he got right that is important. The clever people look at what people get right and the lesser people just pick at each other in an often very immature way. I have seen so many rank and file scientists do this and it is an embarrassment to the profession. The really clever people are not, they just get down to the work they are doing and let the results speak for themselves. The competition is all about improving your own product, not being obsessed with knocking someone else's and especially when it is just work in progress. Unfortunately this global warming business has brought politics into science and I find this most distasteful and it will destroy the scientific process until the scientists realise and stand up for neutrality.

__________________
"A government big enough to supply you with everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have..."

Besoeker

Some do but I suspect they mostly don't.
A scientist working on a new product for say, Glaxo Kline French is hardly likely to be working in co-operation with a compititor from Merck.

At an entirely different level I, and a few others in my field, have a get together once every couple of months. We are good friends of long standing.
For sure, we do business together to mutual advantage. And sometimes we are in competition.
We all know what is prudent to disclose.

Arnold Weinstock might have had a different view.

Clippo

I have been a scientist in academe and quite ruthless business. Therefore, in my experience I think most of BVL's post #23 is badly flawed - as I said earlier - a case of la Vie en Rose. I don't intend to criticise it statement by statement, however I will just add these 2 comments :-

Besoeker wrote:-
I agree.

a) I have been at conferences with people from 'Glaxo' and from Merck and it was a recognised 'game' for everybody to try to find out what the others were working on. Therefore, we were very alert to the risks of giving anything away.

b) I have worked for a number of companies and have / had ( lost touch with most now I am retired), friends in all. But there was always the current company insistence to be cautious. All the companies I worked for had strict non-disclosure clauses written into their contracts of employment.

With regards to academe, history has provided us with some of the bitterest antagonisms. (Newton & Hooke, Einstrein & Bohr I think, several in Geology whose names escape me at the moment, Darwin & the clergy, and recently Gould & Dawkins), Not always has the good guy been recognised by posterity. So I stand by my claim :- scientists are selfishly ruthless in many respects and if you want to participate in the game, you've got to get your facts right or get your hide whipped.

BVL wrote:-
This impinges on the nub of the problem in GW. The science is massively clear and in support of AGW. It is an unchallenged fact in the public domain that USA big business sought to pervert the truth of GW science and Roy Spencer was one of those people who has been paid to seed dissent. He is undoubtedly very clever but he's up againdst other very clever people. He is also an open advocate of Intelligent Design - another debated topic which most scientists in Evolutionary studies take the Darwinian explanation.

This is why his pronouncements are derided by other most other scientists.

For a view on general scientific neutrality I suggest you visit:-

Scientists Sign-on Statement

and while you're there, see what these 'neutral' scientists conclude about GW !!!

Baron von Lotsov

Like I say Clippo there are different kinds of scientists and I'm well aware it is currently a very ruthless profession, as I hear what goes on and quite frankly it sounds like a horrible atmosphere to work in, but it's not all like that, it very much depends on where you work.

My old physics department was probably one of the more laid back ones and across the road was the building where the first computer was invented so it was not the kind of place that didn't produce results, indeed it was the second highest in the country regarding research and got a lot of public funding from the previous Tory government as well. It was the kind of place where a lot of deep thinking took place so no one was at each other's throats. Obviously there is some caution when someone is about to publish something major that someone else would not steal their ideas but it was more a place where people would work together and it meant the sum was greater than the parts, and that was why its research was so good.

Out of the entire department I didn't meet one person like you describe. The closest was one person though that was considered a bit dark and sly and he was a Liberal councillor, but then everyone knew that and so everyone kept a safe distance from him. But on the whole the place worked by mutual trust and respect. You obviously come from something entirely different and more the kind of place where going to work is more like a soldier approaching the battlefield.

__________________
"A government big enough to supply you with everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have..."

Clippo

BVL wrote:-
I am now retired but I assure you in all places I worlded there indeed was an element of a battlefield - in commerce it was more of office politics (the one who got results that suited the manager's definition got promoted & more money). That doesn't mean to say every day was a dread or that one didn't co-operate with colleagues on team projects.

The main reason I perhaps chided you earlier is that I consider my experience the norm and is being played out even more viciously in GW science.

Neither side will even take prisoners !!

John Cooper

But if you refute a key element of a theory then you have to refer to where someone says "x is a key part of y".
He has not done this.

Baron von Lotsov

I agree he hasn't and so like so much that is unsubstantiated my position is that I don't know whether it is true or false. I'm not jumping to the conclusion that because he has not provided a reference then that follows he does not have one since that would rely on some character assessment or such baseless ideas that all people do this or do that and especially the idea that all scientists are out to trick people. So I will bear that in mind and hopefully we will hear some more on his progress as he continues. What I was initially getting excited about was the idea of seeing if isotopes can be used to give date information so we can track down the origin of these carbon fluctuations. It's one of those lateral-thinking ideas and something might be made of it. A good scientist will look at it and start thinking themselves about it, as there is no obvious reason to say this cannot be done.

__________________
"A government big enough to supply you with everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have..."

John Cooper

However without the original reference the paper is not very useful.