Should Climate Science be blinded?

F-X · #1 03-31-2010, 08:08 PM

Or even double blinded?

I've thought about this a lot. Several times I presented evidence in a thread, from NOAA or NASA or some other reputable body, and those with entrenched positions demanded to know the source before they would even consider commenting on the data.

The level of politics, belief, faith and bias in regards to climate, or even weather, is beyond belief. In any field where observer bias is that strong, blinding is almost required for anyone to believe a study or experiment.

Double blinding is also considered essential in many cases. If belief and bias are strong enough to actually influence large hard science studies, then one can't imagine what is going on with current climate science.

So I am wondering how would the results somebody reaches differ if they were blinded? Or double blinded. And how that could be achieved.

Kael · #2 03-31-2010, 08:12 PM

Ok, I'll bite. How exactly do you propose to 'blind' studies of the weather or climate patterns?

F-X · #3 03-31-2010, 08:25 PM

First thing first. If it can be done, would it be useful?

fragment · #4 03-31-2010, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by F-X

Several times I presented evidence in a thread, from NOAA or NASA or some other reputable body, and those with entrenched positions demanded to know the source before they would even consider commenting on the data.

To interpret data you need to know something about how it was collected, what was actually measured, yada yada. So knowing of the source before commenting on the data is good practice. In fact, people really ought to look at the methods and see whether they're acceptable before even looking at the data and conclusions.

Kael · #5 03-31-2010, 08:27 PM

No, that's not a first things first. I presume I don't have to tell you what a blind study is and why it is useful. This question was answered a long time ago when the idea of a blind study was thought up and formalized. The pertinent question here, indeed the only question here, is how the fuck you plan on implementing anything that could be called a 'blind study' on projects that study temperature data and climate changes.

Crumb · #6 03-31-2010, 08:28 PM

First one would have to know wtf it is. It is very unclear to me what a double blind climate study would even look like. Do we feed researchers fake data?

Adam · #7 03-31-2010, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by F-X

First thing first. If it can be done, would it be useful?

I don't even think a double blind climate study even makes any sense. Would that mean that the climate couldn't know if it was in the control group or not?

Demimonde · #8 03-31-2010, 08:29 PM

I think internet trolls should be blinded with a geothermally heated poker so as not to contribute to CO2 emissions.

F-X · #9 03-31-2010, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by F-X

First thing first. If it can be done, would it be useful?

I don't even think a double blind climate study even makes any sense. Would that mean that the climate couldn't know if it was in the control group or not?

The double blind part was just to annoy a certain type person. It already has.

I mean, I knew at least one person would be an insulting troll in a topic like this, so I gave them something to eat.

I think we can all rule out the double blind part, in regards to blinding the temperature gauge so it doesn't know if it is Siberia or new York.

Crumb · #10 03-31-2010, 08:36 PM

So you don't understand the question? :confused:

last I checked climates don't know things.

F-X · #11 03-31-2010, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fragment

In fact, people really ought to look at the methods and see whether they're acceptable before even looking at the data and conclusions.

I tend to agree. If you find out a temperature gauge is in the middle of an asphalt parking lot, and it used to be a meadow, it doesn't make much sense to take the history of temperatures from it as of much use.

Adam · #12 03-31-2010, 08:39 PM

So how does the blind part work? Do you have a second Earthlike planet somewhere, free of human interference, and you don't tell researchers which planet the data comes from?

F-X · #13 03-31-2010, 08:40 PM

A blind or blinded experiment is a scientific experiment where some of the persons involved are prevented from knowing certain information that might lead to conscious or unconscious bias on their part, invalidating the results.

It's not like the idea is new or anything.

I wonder how it would effect the science. So much seems to be opinion, belief and bias.

F-X · #14 03-31-2010, 08:43 PM

I've seen this happening all over the place. The most recent was some rabid true believer went apeshit over a report from some rightwing magazine or something, before they knew the data was actually from the top source.

But even after they realized the data was the best known data, real hard data, they still were trying to somehow make it meet their beliefs.

It's astounding to watch this happen.

Kael · #15 03-31-2010, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by F-X

A blind or blinded experiment is a scientific experiment where some of the persons involved are prevented from knowing certain information that might lead to conscious or unconscious bias on their part, invalidating the results.

It's not like the idea is new or anything.

I wonder how it would effect the science. So much seems to be opinion, belief and bias.

Thank you for citing the wikipedia definition of a blind study. I would have been totally lost without this effort on your part.

Now, I don't suppose you have a cogent example of how you propose to design a climate study that would meet this definition of 'blind'?

I'm not asking you to go start your own research group or anything, just a simple outline or basic premise will do fine.

Adam · #16 03-31-2010, 08:46 PM

Yah, I hate it when some person goes apeshit over a thing that happened somewhere, before they realize that some other things were different.

F-X · #17 03-31-2010, 08:47 PM

Do you know what triple blinding is?

fragment · #18 03-31-2010, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by F-X

I tend to agree. If you find out a temperature gauge is in the middle of an asphalt parking lot, and it used to be a meadow, it doesn't make much sense to take the history of temperatures from it as of much use.

Unless you can quantify the bias, so as to remove it and be left with the interesting information.

Adam · #19 03-31-2010, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by F-X

Do you know what triple blinding is?

If I say no, will you paste the wiki definition for us?

davidm · #20 03-31-2010, 08:58 PM

A Public Service Announcement from lolhog

F-X · #21 03-31-2010, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

If I say no, will you paste the wiki definition for us?

Since you went to find out, why don't you?

Adam · #22 03-31-2010, 09:04 PM

Tell you what, if you explain how you think blind climate science would work (who is prevented from seeing which information?), I'll go paste the definition for you.

F-X · #23 03-31-2010, 09:06 PM

Now I know you are bullshitting.

The Lone Ranger · #24 03-31-2010, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by F-X

I've seen this happening all over the place. The most recent was some rabid true believer went apeshit over a report from some rightwing magazine or something, before they knew the data was actually from the top source.

But even after they realized the data was the best known data, real hard data, they still were trying to somehow make it meet their beliefs.

It's astounding to watch this happen.

The irony is strong with this one ...

Adam · #25 03-31-2010, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by F-X

Now I know you are bullshitting.

No, really, if you make your OP meaningful by attaching some specifics to it, I promise I will go cut and paste some text from Wikipedia for you.