[geeks] Global Warming causes...

[wa2egp at att.net]

> Well....
> 
> Science qua science, yes, is neither good nor bad (well, mostly[%]).
> But "good science" and "bad science" are not nonsensical phrases.  Work
> done carefully, with attention to detail, without hidden agendas, with
> proper statistical methods, proper reporting, careful consideration of
> possible sources of error, good experimental technique, etc - that's
> good science.  Start losing those desirable characteristics, on the
> other hand, and you're on the road to bad science.
> 
> [%] "Mostly" because I believe there is are some extreme cases, where
>     science done according to what I sketched above as "good science"
>     is nevertheless bad in a moral sense; an example would be the use
>     of humans as experimental subjects without consideration of their
>     rights as human beings.

That's entering the area of scientific ethics.  I would hate to be 
studying, let's say, pain.  I wouldn't want to cause pain to study it.
That might be the only way to control the intensity and type of pain.
Not me.  I'll go study something else.  :)

I like the terms good science and "junk" science.  Being human, it's 
hard to be totally objective.  Of course, you want to be right.  
That's why in experiements, you test the null hypothesis.  It 
(hopefully) will eliminate the experimenter's bias.
Unfortunately, Environmental Science is more open to junk science than
other branches due to it's being relatively new, dependence on modeling
especially computer modeling which has its flaws and the greater
potential for political influence.

Bob