I finally saw Al Gore's movie tonight. It was rather interesting. In case you haven't seen it, he discusses how he learned early on from a college professor that rising CO2 levels correspond with rising global temperatures. He presented data and information for various scientists, military groups and others involved in global-warming related research.
As a science person I always enjoy hard data like the graphs he provided for various things. He also seemed to portray scientists as absolute and ethical authorities on the subject. Naturally, I like scientists and hard data can be hard to refute. However, I still think its good to question everything. I would LOVE to have his sources for his info, preferably in written format for reference. I'm not saying I doubt global warming and the impact of our actions on the environment; I just think you can't always take everything at face value. Scientists, just like any other profession, want to put their best work forward. Sometimes perfectly good info is omitted from journal submissions because it complicates the main focus.
Just because things get published doesn't make them reputable. We had a seminar this week discussing the ethics and temptation of image manipulation in research journals. Only ONE journal has routinely scaned EVERY SINGLE IMAGE submitted to them for the past 3+ years to check for tampering or over-manipulation. It's kind of an unspoken issue in the scientific community. If you can adjust the image contrast to make your picture look awesome, why not? Why NOT remove ugly background? Obviously its WRONG and unethical to completely fabricate results (and we were shown examples of data that some scientists DID fabricate, unfortunately).
It was very interesting to hear from a major journal editor that some manipulation is okay but for the most part fellow scientists (and the public) need to see data as it was observed, as ugly as it may be. So now I am skeptical of everything I read. Did they really include everything? Probably not. Did anyone check to verify their results, or their references? Al Gore did make a point that 0 scientific articles disagreed with the theory of Global Warming and yet 53% of media articles took a skeptical position. Interesting. Scary.
The media drives the taxpayers. Taxpayers drive research. Most taxpayers can't sort through intellectual journals to decide what is true and what is merely a media sensation. Hell, even a lot of scientists can't do it.
Regardless...recycle your shizz. It isn't hard.
As a science person I always enjoy hard data like the graphs he provided for various things. He also seemed to portray scientists as absolute and ethical authorities on the subject. Naturally, I like scientists and hard data can be hard to refute. However, I still think its good to question everything. I would LOVE to have his sources for his info, preferably in written format for reference. I'm not saying I doubt global warming and the impact of our actions on the environment; I just think you can't always take everything at face value. Scientists, just like any other profession, want to put their best work forward. Sometimes perfectly good info is omitted from journal submissions because it complicates the main focus.
Just because things get published doesn't make them reputable. We had a seminar this week discussing the ethics and temptation of image manipulation in research journals. Only ONE journal has routinely scaned EVERY SINGLE IMAGE submitted to them for the past 3+ years to check for tampering or over-manipulation. It's kind of an unspoken issue in the scientific community. If you can adjust the image contrast to make your picture look awesome, why not? Why NOT remove ugly background? Obviously its WRONG and unethical to completely fabricate results (and we were shown examples of data that some scientists DID fabricate, unfortunately).
It was very interesting to hear from a major journal editor that some manipulation is okay but for the most part fellow scientists (and the public) need to see data as it was observed, as ugly as it may be. So now I am skeptical of everything I read. Did they really include everything? Probably not. Did anyone check to verify their results, or their references? Al Gore did make a point that 0 scientific articles disagreed with the theory of Global Warming and yet 53% of media articles took a skeptical position. Interesting. Scary.
The media drives the taxpayers. Taxpayers drive research. Most taxpayers can't sort through intellectual journals to decide what is true and what is merely a media sensation. Hell, even a lot of scientists can't do it.
Regardless...recycle your shizz. It isn't hard.
Lame, I know. I couldn't resist. 
