By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 19 February 2010
Edit Thread
highwaystar101 said:
Kasz216 said:
highwaystar101 said:

Leave Britney Liberals alone *waves hands furiously* LEAVE THEM ALONE!

Anyway, I want to address your comment a couple up. People deleting data on climate change is disgusting, and yet it has been done for years. They have held back the the truth in many cases. That said, from what I can tell the recent news hasn't been about information kept back that would falsify the climate change theory; rather it is rejecting information to purposely skew results so they appear much worse, which is extremely bad, but does not falsify the theory.

To be honest, the lack of transparency leaves many questions. I think the results that have been withheld should be examined as it is damaging to the scientific process. These results could hold some significance and show the way with climate change, they could show the truth of the situation. But I disagree that the withheld results falsify the theory like you implied.

Then again, as I have not seen said results I can in no way be certain, and neither can anyone else.

Quite honestly, it should be law that you can't publish scientific data unless you make all of your research, methods, EVERYTHING available via a database either provided by you or the government. The only reason this isn't the case currently i'd guess is so corporations can lure sceintists who also care about publishing rather then just pure money making.

We did have a scientific database, it was called the Internet. Then porn found its way onto it and we have never looked back since lol.

...

Kidding of course, but I agree there should be law that science should be as transparent and as unbiased as possible. One of the major fundamentals of the scientific process is allowing others to critically evaluate your work, and that can't be done unless you provide your results and methods openly. When you hide results it's not science, it's lying.

I don't think that a government databank would make much difference though. I go on many scientific databanks when I am doing research, and it's pretty much all there; you may have to go to several databanks to find one thing, but it's there. The thing is, you're always going to have people who will purposely not publish results for whatever reason, I think a government databank may not make much odds to that.

But you are right, it should be the case where people can not hide their results and climate change is a perfect example of why.


I think it would change a lot... be different. I mean look at this stuff... if Phil Jones was forced to provide his data... climate research would look DRASTICALLY different.