Climategate, a year after
Ancora sullo Scandalo Climategate
Monday, November 29, 2010
How Much Penicillin Should I Give My Dog
, in " commemorazione " del suo primo anniversario!
Vignetta satirica fa il parallelo fra Scandalo Watergate e Climategate
 Good Reading: |
| --------------------------- |
Climatgate, a year after
E 'already spent a year by the spread of Climategate. On the blogosphere, skeptical or not, there are many posts that recount those days, mostly by self-congratulation and the attitude required for success with their readers on the one hand, returning instead to emphasize the limited meaning what happened to the other.
As for CM, I think there is much to celebrate, in the immediacy of the event and in the weeks to follow we have said everything there was to say, including having to specify a few weeks ago, when the last report came out of the commissions of inquiry that investigated the subject. If anything, I think there is much to be kept in mind. Climategate .
The board is a must, and I followed him before continuing, otherwise, comments will soon only a few sentences, you deserve a nice yellow card to conduct a high suspicion of cherry picking. But we see the first one: [...] That Has Been through a peer review study is Too Often used as a universal defense of the ITS quality. If more scientists Were more forthcoming about the flaws in Their quality-control system, and then the commentators May Have Been Wider public more willing to accept it in Engaged That scientists do not always act as the public expect [...] Would
In this regard, it is worth mentioning another "vice" the characters in this story, or unwillingness to cooperate by making all but its all procedures and data processing of the first publications and requests for investigation then.
[...] But It Is Clear That the CRU scientists did not cooperate fully with all requests for data and other information .[...]
But it is clear that scientists CRU did not cooperate fully in connection with requests for data and information.
[...] For critics of CRU and Their, Legitimate Sometimes, complaints about data access to be taken Seriously, They must be more specific about who Should Be more open with what, and Address Their Concerns at the correct target [...] For critics of CRUs and their sometimes legitimate grievances about the need to take seriously the requests for access to data, it is necessary that they be more specific about who should be more available and what, properly addressing their concerns. as above. The first sentence contains an account of anything but trivial. It will be true that the investigations that followed was not detected in any conduct scientific, but it is also true that investigations are been much more pro forma than anything else, otherwise, as it were, we would not be here talking about it, and especially should not read anything like it in the pages of Nature, which is not only the most authoritative scientific journal, is also more aligned with the mainstream , declared for editorial choice. And that we understand in the second period shown, because those who have participated in the discussion on Climategate, as protagonists or simple comment, arch is known that the criticisms and requests were fully addressed. To get the data of Mann's work took years, for those of Briffa is still waiting for someone, just to name a few examples., comes the "ivory tower" of climate science:
And finally, but only for me because I ask you again to read the editorial in full
[...] The UEA misjudged the need hierarchy That Respond to Internet blogs and the role now in play for seeding stories the mainstream media. "I will not worry about it until I hear it on the [BBC Radio] Today program," When I Said one university official Pointed to early online coverage at the time. He Got His Wish A Few Days Later. By then, the Climategate Was Already ITS swinging off hinges. [...]
The hierarchy of the UEA [University of East Anglia] underestimated the need to respond and the role that blogs now play in feeding the flow of information to the media. "I do not worry until there is coverage of the Today Programme [BBC Radio]_______________
. Desire fulfilled a few days later. By then, the Climategate was already spreading. In other words, they have not taken on time. And why? To over-confidence in an information system that clearly, by choice, laziness or for convenience, peace of mind guaranteed. So much so that we read your mail in a few words of dismay to an incident in which apparently had been given too much room for skepticism. Too bad that even that system information was not noticed to have been largely supplanted by the blogging community, by word of mouth network, the voices of those who, not having access to the tower, have been found asylum in the blogosphere, in many cases many more minds than capable of doing the traditional communication. If they had not, we would not have seen most of the media line up to blogs as soon as it became clear that the story was very greedy and very, very real.
Eventually, as the same editorial, these guys certainly have not done a great favor to the credibility of the sector, and no matter come la faccenda sia venuta fuori. Sì, probabilmente quello perpetrato ai danni dei server della UEA è stato un reato (ammesso che si sia trattato di hackeraggio), e questo può non piacere, ma forse nell’epoca in cui si sanno più fatti da Wikileaks che dai telegiornali -con metodo che nessun benpensante si sogna di censurare- sarebbe meglio evitare di assumere una condotta che possa poi essere oggetto di questo genere di attenzioni, specie se c’è di mezzo, come dicono sempre loro, il futuro dell’umanità.
"Effetto Serra: la Grande Bufala!" Blog:
__________________________
http://effetto-serra.blogspot.com
ML: http://groups.google.com/group/effetto-serra
Email:
effetto-serra@googlegroups.com
effetto-serra@googlegroups.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment