February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27



« EPA moves to regulate smokestack greenhouse gases - Yahoo! News | Main | Are You Ready For Global Cooling? - IBD - Investors.com »

May 15, 2010



Dear Lubos,You and I agree that particle psisycihts have standards of proof (including taking great care not to fool themselves) that are rigorous and commendable. They would not tolerate a colleague who went around publicizing something like the hockey stick. But we know this because we know the people involved and their scientific culture. At some point, I think, climate science has gotten so big that the loss of credibility of climate scientists will simply spill over to all of us. Should we expect someone to understand distinctions between psisycihts and climate scientists when our APS statement is, if anything, more hysterical than that of the AGU or AMS? It is ONLY credibility that allows a discovery at the LHC to be widely believed: people believe psisycihts are careful and honest, and do not, for example, just invent some particle to keep the funding going. After all, no one could actually tell, except the people involved. You and I know such fraud is not a credible scenario. I wonder about those looking from the outside. The APS does us all a disservice, and HEP and NP could be at risk here. Re the politics of the psisycihts, I don't think they just focused on their work in the star wars period--they had opinions. Now it is (politically) convenient to focus on their work, and just 'trust the consensus'. While they may do great work, their credibility is at risk, rightly or wrongly, and it is dumb of them not to pay more attention. Climate science would be improved if they did.Cheers.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo