It’s as broken as peer review.
As with civil (and military) space, we have a 20th-century system in place for the 21st century.
Update a few minutes later]
Related: Why scientists hide their doubts about global warming from the media.
[Update a cuple minutes later]
Sorry, HTML was broken for first link, should be fixed now.
When you say “the science is settled,” you are arguing for an end to your research funding.
Oops.
This is all part of the Democrats’ war on science:
Looking forward to a new U.S. President next year, whether the Democrats or the Republicans are in power, I don’t expect a continuation of the status quo on climate science funding. The Democrats are moving away from science towards policy – who needs to spend all that funding on basic climate science research? Global climate modeling might be ‘saved’ if they think these climate models can support local impact assessments (in spite of widespread acknowledgement that they cannot). If the Republicans are elected, Ted Cruz has stated he will stop all funding support for the IPCC and UNFCCC initiatives. That said, he seems to like data and basic scientific research.
Heh.
[Update a few minutes later]
“It’s a bit complicated.”
You don’t say.
A 25% increase in healthy lifespan in mice, by genetic surgery. It’s unclear, though, if this can be done to existing phenotypes.
[Update a while later]
Here’s a more interesting take from Ed Yong.
[Update a few minutes later]
OK, they do actually seem to be clearing senescent cells from normal mice. This is pretty exciting stuff.
Dale Skran critiques a strawmannish article from a few days ago, so I don’t have to.
A roundup of links and discussion of the latest in scientific “transparency.”
In my opinion, science that has any policy implications (I’m looking at you, climate and nutrition) has gone completely off the rails.
A call for an impartial scientific review of government guidelines.
They’re currently worse than useless.
Another example of their bogosity:
It occurs to me to wonder whether this error in the GISS-E2-R ocean mixing parameterisation, which gave rise to AMOC instability in the Pliocene simulation, might possibly account for the model’s behaviour in LU run 1. It looks to me as if something goes seriously wrong with the AMOC in the middle of the 20th century in that run, with no subsequent recovery evident.
But let’s make wealth-destroying policy based on this!
[Update on January 28th]
Insights from Karl Popper to break the gridlock in the climate debate.
It’s sad how so many people who (ironically) accuse me of being a “climate denier” or a “science denier” are so profoundly ignorant of how science actually works.
[Bumped]
[Update a while later]
An analysis from Judith Curry and Nic Lewis on the latest climate crap from Mann et al:
As I see it, this paper is a giant exercise in circular reasoning:
- Assume that the global surface temperature estimates are accurate; ignore the differences with the satellite atmospheric temperatures
- Assume that the CMIP5 multi-model ensemble can be used to accurately portray probabilities
- Assume that the CMIP5 models adequately simulate internal variability
- Assume that external forcing data is sufficiently certain
- Assume that the climate models are correct in explaining essentially 100% of the recent warming from CO2
In order for Mann et al.’s analysis to work, you have to buy each of these 5 assumptions; each of these is questionable to varying degrees.
You don’t say.
Interesting that this happened a few days after Minsky’s death: A computer has defeated a professional at go.
Is it a death threat?
I'll get more concerned if/when it turns out to actually exist. https://t.co/TEgifsZCF4
— SafeNotAnOption (@SafeNotAnOption) January 26, 2016