I can't make it to Build. Any chance they could bring Build to me? I live next to quite a large sports field, it could probably fit.
Loading User Information from Channel 9
Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9
Loading User Information from MSDN
Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN
Loading Visual Studio Achievements
Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements
Actually, they get tax deductions AND subsidies -- item 3 on the list "Oil and Gas exploration and development expensing ($7.1 billion)"
But subsidies for the oil industry are ok? The oil industry gets more subsidies that green industries.
If he is wrong, then thousands of people will never know he was wrong and will continue to believe that he is a credible source. He isn't writing papers for scientists, he is writing articles for the general public who will see him as "a scientist" and author or a book that has won prestigious prizes, despite none of his credibility being in climate science.
Authority is used in this context as a synonym for credibility (as in "He is an authority on the subject" meaning "He is a credible source").
No one can stop him writing articles, but if newspapers did their checks properly they wouldn't publish them when they realised that they were leaving themselves wide open to looking foolish when it turns out he is not a credible source. I'm not suggesting a ban, just journalistic competence.
@Dr Herbie: Besides the point.
Science is not something that requires a written statement by an authority or a recognition by a group of peers. Because ultimately these authorities could be wrong and they will be proven wrong in the future by new insights. This has been the norm in science for centuries. A sceptic view is the only scientific view a scientist can have, question everything. And truly anybody can take part in this process.
Therefore I am glad that the thinkprogress has written an article about it, so I can weigh the pro's and the con's for myself and make a judgement for myself by myself. Then Matt can go back to the drawing board refine his theories and come up with new ones and we advance in the debate.
It's when scientists begin to cry "concensus" and start namecalling (the article is full of fallacies), then things start to turn unscientific.
You may not agree with Matt, but it is very unscientific to call someone emotional, unconstructive and not qualified. For all we may know, he is right,..
P.S. Reading the link right now (I did allready read it, I re-read it just now )
Science is something that requires credibility. Matt is using his credibility in one field to give himself faux-credibility in another. He is entitled to whatever opinion he likes, but he's not entitled to write articles in papers like the Wall Street Journal (who have made themselves look pretty silly for publishing it) which will be read by thousands who don't appreciate that he has no authority on the subject.
If you don't think science requires credibility, then I have some homeopathic cancer cures you might be interested in buying.
For the record, I did not call him "emotional" or "unconstructive", so please don't put words in my mouth.
@Dr Herbie: The climategate emails have revealed that the peer review process was corrupted by the climate scientists.
"We will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what peer-review literature is."
This may be the only positive thing to come out of "climate-gate" -- nobody should be able to influence the peer review process.
However, Rex Murphy's opinion piece overstates the influence of the UEA on the rest of the scientific community in an obvious FUD attack (not surprising given that he has a history of sponsorship by the oil industry and writes in a conservative paper).
@Dr Herbie: So, you either need a written statement from an authority or approval of authority figures (same thing basically) in order to have an opinion or do science in a field?
What guarantee will I, as a layman, have that they are right?
If we would apply the same rules to computer industry, we would still be running DOS 1.0,.
My last point on this thread as it's spiraling already ...
1. You are entitled to have an opinion on anything you like, but it is scientifically dishonest to use credentials in one field of science to give false authority to your opinion on another field of science.
2. There are no guarantees in science, so having a system whereby an individual's knowledge is verified by others with proven knowledge is the most statistically probable method to avoid charlatanism. This is why we don't take papers seriously unless they are peer reviewed (and yes it open to abuse, but not on a large scale).