![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Didn't do my usual GC post this morning, on account of an early appointment with our tutor. It was a much chillier walk today than it had been yesterday, when the temp was in the 70s. Then, we had the afternoon park day, which was fabulous. We still managed to the school work, too.
The tutor really gets on with my boys - I think we'll keep visiting him even when the current crisis is over.
***
On GC today, we had a controversial article by Pearce, Behold: ECOGATE! It's her take on the quick sweeping-under-the-rug of leaked emails by climatologists. I found the content of emails to be scandalous and upsetting, because scientists are supposed to follow the data, not change or destroy it so that no one can question their conclusions. I'm not saying human-affected climate change isn't possible (or even happening, for all I know), but some of it's proponents bear closer resemblance to zealots than I am personally comfortable with in a scientists. Circling the wagons and talking of boycotting reputable, peer-reviewed journals that dare to publish anything not supporting the hard party line -- that's not science, that's CYA career protection. Scientists follow the data. Period. They don't tell the only guy who is out there in the field actually counting polar bears that his data is unreliable because his numbers suggest that polar bear populations are higher than estimated. Because the drowning polar bears may be drowning because of competition for resources, not dangerously melting ice.
That makes me just as mad as the Fox News Producers who work up the crowds at rallies before interviewing people in front of cheering masses. That's not journalism, and if-your-data-doesn't-agree-with-mine-then-you're-a-fraud is not science, either.
That's a bee in my bonnet, if you can't tell. ;)
The tutor really gets on with my boys - I think we'll keep visiting him even when the current crisis is over.
***
On GC today, we had a controversial article by Pearce, Behold: ECOGATE! It's her take on the quick sweeping-under-the-rug of leaked emails by climatologists. I found the content of emails to be scandalous and upsetting, because scientists are supposed to follow the data, not change or destroy it so that no one can question their conclusions. I'm not saying human-affected climate change isn't possible (or even happening, for all I know), but some of it's proponents bear closer resemblance to zealots than I am personally comfortable with in a scientists. Circling the wagons and talking of boycotting reputable, peer-reviewed journals that dare to publish anything not supporting the hard party line -- that's not science, that's CYA career protection. Scientists follow the data. Period. They don't tell the only guy who is out there in the field actually counting polar bears that his data is unreliable because his numbers suggest that polar bear populations are higher than estimated. Because the drowning polar bears may be drowning because of competition for resources, not dangerously melting ice.
That makes me just as mad as the Fox News Producers who work up the crowds at rallies before interviewing people in front of cheering masses. That's not journalism, and if-your-data-doesn't-agree-with-mine-then-you're-a-fraud is not science, either.
That's a bee in my bonnet, if you can't tell. ;)