RyanZAG

That doesn't rule out that it's a blanket pass for some papers. How about if we phrase it this way:

In some cases, peer review works correctly with constructive feedback. In some cases, peer review is abused to "rough up the competition" and slow down the progress of science. In yet more cases, peer review is a blanket pass when the correct actors all align on that paper. There is no way to determine which of these cases apply to any particular paper.

Or put another way, all of these experiences can be true and correct at the same time.

That's a great point -- and maybe explains why the theory of evolution had so much push back for so long? Maybe there's a link to skepticism and these kinds of financial or credibility links? Is it subconscious even? Could be useful in anticipating which theories would face more pushback?

> But I don't think it's true that every scientist expressing a belief in anthropogenic global warming has a conflict of interest. Some number of them are tenured professors, for example. This is a good example of the value of the tenure system in academia.

Even a tenured professor still wants to be published in leading journals. Plus he gets a huge amount of credibility within his own university by being constantly published. Tenure definitely is a positive here, but it's not a get-out-of-jail free card by any means as there are a ton of incentives for him to stick to the climate change dogma regardless.

> As for the papers in Nature and Science, well, I haven't read them, but given the extreme politicization of the issue, it doesn't surprise me that the authors are tending to omit qualifications and caveats, since many people who want to dismiss the evidence would pick up on these -- as we're seeing in this very discussion.

Great point! I agree fully. But is it really useful? Now instead of people picking up on these qualifications and caveats to attack the argument, they're pointing out the caveats themselves and saying 'Haha! You ommitted this! You have something to hide!'. So the cure they're trying to use here seems worse than the disease. We put in these qualifications and caveats to protect our work. A good Agile paper would include the criticisms of Agile too -- not because they want to, but because it's important to understand the weak points. Obfuscating it doesn't help anyone in the long run, and it doesn't stop the same people attacking it anyway.

Yes, seems okay to me too. It's how you'd expect it to work. But now that we're in the position we're in, there is a financial incentive for climate science researchers to never research anything to disprove the basis for those committees to keep giving them money. And any non-climate science researcher would never be taken seriously. And any climate science researcher who found evidence against climate change would be heavily incentivized not to publish. And it's why it's not convincing for climate scientists to tell you that climate science exists.

Although really what I was trying to get at originally is simply that multiple climate change scientists endorsing each other on the existence of climate change does not make their work any more convincing than just a single author in a good journal discussing Agile. It went on a major windy path, but hopefully you at least understand my point even if you disagree.

> Historically, science has got a lot of things right.

Can you name any historical outcome of science that did not align in some way with the financials? I cannot name a single scientist who ever researched himself out of a job. Yet that is what would happen to climate science researchers if they were able to prove climate change isn't real. It's unprecedented and I don't think using the historical track record of financially beneficial science is a good argument.

As for doing a good job -- sure, I try do a good job always. But that is entirely within the confines of my job. I'm not going to do a good job that would directly get me fired. Most people wouldn't. Most climate science researchers wouldn't.

Economic incentive is usually not the primary incentive, but in the case of climate science, there is a massive peer incentive to prove that climate change is an enormous risk. Saying something like "I don't think climate change matters" is going to get you snide comments from your peers and nobody is going to want to co-author papers with you. It's a big problem of science and exists in many other areas too. Politics matters.

Unfortunately, the numbers we need here are all confidential. Here's the list of UN grants though: http://www.unccd.int/en/programmes/Capacity-building/CBW/mar...

Here's a decent article on the economic effects on climate science research: http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/got-science/2015/got-scie... - This is in the opposite direction, but it shows how easily money is a factor. The fact still remains that there are unknown and undisclosed links to research that is paid to give a specific result.

As for climate scientists, yes they are fairly specialized. A PHD is always going to be specialized. And even more so, nearly all work for climate scientists is in research or in explaining climate change: https://www.indeed.com/q-Climate-Scientist-jobs.html

> Wouldn't tenure follow from a groundbreaking study that disproved mainstream scientific belief, instead of boringly replicating existing findings?

Not if even trying to research it would get you immediately fired. Stating you don't believe climate change exists inside a climate science department will almost instantly guarantee you will be axed. You're definitely not going to get funding to study it.

> Of course there is an economic link to everything. You still haven't established the link in a meaningful fashion. "I'm just asking questions" isn't good enough to present a convincing argument.

That we agree that there is an economic link, and that an economic link will influence outcomes, is literally all I'm saying.

There's lots of evidence to show that climate science deserves a lot of funding -- our world kind of depends on it. Believe me, I'm not in disagreement with you there.

However, I think there is a massive causal link there. If you're looking to do your PHD and your advisor tells you to research climate change because of all the grant money, that seems like a massive link to me. Then once you have your PHD on climate change, the obvious next step for funding is to do more research on climate change.

> 1. That's a bit like saying if powered aviation goes away tomorrow (as in, it is to be completely proven to be impossible), every single engineer at Boeing would be out of a job.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. If you were doing a study on whether powered aviation is going away tomorrow, 99% (well probably 100%) of Boeing engineers would tell you that it isn't. Obviously. But you cannot use that as a proof that powered aviation is not going away. Even if it was going away, that's just not how you prove it. See? If every single powered aviation engineer in the world peer reviewed a paper on powered aviation not going away, it's still not any better or any more proof of it. There is too much financial incentive. It's not a good argument.

Now how much more so in the case of climate science where you can't clearly see airplanes flying above your head?

> 2. The incentive structure doesn't work that way. If you could show that global warming isn't real, yes, all the other climate scientists will lose their job, but you will be rich beyond your dreams. Every billion-dollar petro-business will shower you with praise and contracts. You will be hailed as a savior of mankind, saving a million jobs and preventing policy mistakes that would have cost many billion dollars. The stake has never been higher.

There's a few scientists trying to show this. They even have some papers that have convinced many non-climate scientists, although all have massive flaws if you look closely. Regardless, no matter how good those papers were, do you really believe all climate scientists would just sit down and say 'oh well, it was a nice life while it lasted' ? If a paper was released that truly did refute all climate science, nearly every climate scientist would declare it false, probably without even reading it. They'd look for spelling mistakes in the paper and declare it false if they found one. They'd tear it apart and convince themselves it was false, because their lives would literally depend on it.

> So who's brainwashing all those French, Japanese, Chinese climate researchers to conspire with NASA against their own interest?

Do you think researchers work in silos devoted to their own country without using the work of others...? That's not really how it works imo. Besides, climate change is massively good news for China -- they're making a fortune off 'green' solutions. I just checked and France and Japan are also, although to a much lesser extent. So I don't think this works as proof either.

> That's very flawed reasoning: Do you think these scientists didn't have a job before?

A huge percentage of them didn't actually. Most of the current researchers into climate change have always worked as researchers in this field. You have to remember the field has been around since the 60s, but has rapidly begun to attract PHD students and others because of the vast amounts of grant money devoted to it in recent years.

> Where are you getting your global warming papers from?

Nature and Science. Where are you getting your Agile papers from?

As someone who has received a number of grants, I don't think I'm entirely incorrect here. Although I was exaggerating, the field would shrink dramatically, departments would be shut down or merged, journals would stop carrying articles on a wide range of subjects which would force the researchers to publish into new fields they have no prior experience in. That puts them in a position of competing with researchers already in those fields. With most institutions requiring their researchers to get into journals, you can hopefully see how this would have a very big impact on everyone's career.

I don't think there is actually a prior example of this ever happening as I don't know of any other field of study where everything is based off a single issue. And if that issue were false (yes yes, I know it isn't -- but if it was!) then the entire field would collapse. Something to think about.

From a cursory glance into the grants and money devoted to climate science research from the UN and others, nearly all of it directly relates to climate change. There is a market for general studies into planetary climate, but they're minuscule compared to the amount of funding provided by the fear of climate change.

To deny the financial link here is purposeful blindness, in my opinion. If all of the studies showed that no climate change was occurring, and all of the studies were funded by oil companies, you'd no doubt be agreeing with me. Actually the studies that are funded by oil companies do show far less climate change, while those funded by the UN show the most. Coincidence? Not a chance.

> I don't agree with the down vote applied to your post. However, the rhetorical device of claiming an opponent has ulterior motives is frowned upon on HN.

Fair enough, but I literally got down voted 5 seconds after pressing submit. I've never seen that before, and I have a feeling I was downvoted by someone without even having my post read fully. It was more of a personal anecdote to myself that there's more here than meets the eye.

I don't that's true.

For an example that would apply to computer science: "99% of computer scientists agree that computers are the future of mankind". I don't think you even need to do a study here, it's obvious that around 99% of computer scientists would believe that, because it's what their lives are built around. Climate change scientists' lives are built around the existence of climate change, and so obviously they'd have the same beliefs.

Where the value of a scientific paper comes in is within the discipline: how do a I best use this computer to accomplish something? How do I best cut down on the effects of carbon on the atmosphere? If I increase oxygen density, what will happen? Regardless of the answer to these questions, the people involved will be able to continue their lives. They're disconnected with economic reasons because no matter the answer to the question, there is more work for them. Economic reasons come in when the results of a study would directly threaten the livelihood of the scientist. In that case, we can't just assume that because all the scientists agree that it's automatically perfect.

> In the end, the only proper way to do this is with arguments based on merit, rather than perceived motivations of other people.

Correct! My point was more about how the Agile paper is disparaged. I have more reason to believe the results of an accredited and published Agile paper than I do a paper on the very reason an entire field of study exists.

My personal belief that climate change is real and a huge problem is irrelevant here: I still find the Agile paper to be more convincing. The only reason I believe in climate change is because I've checked the science myself to the best of my ability, and not because of the peer reviewed papers which I believe would say the same exact thing even if climate change does not exist. Hopefully that makes it clearer.

While that's true, there is another issue here. If global warming went away tomorrow -- as in, it were to be completely proven to not exist -- every single climate change scientist would be out of a job. They'd literally have to start over their entire professional career from scratch with almost zero chance of getting any kind of funding. This includes everyone who peer reviews the papers too.

Meanwhile if Agile is proven to be terrible, it would be a huge boon for those writing about programming methodology as they could easily invent a new one and sell that.

So there is far more economic reason for almost every scientist involved to argue that global warming is definitely happening, while there is almost no economic reason for a computer scientist to argue it. So I don't think sheer quantity of papers in journals is necessarily a proof that global warming papers are any better than Agile papers in good journals.

EDIT: Instantly downvoted on posting! I've struck a nerve. That, to me, proves that people have a lot more to hide than they let on. I've certainly never been downvoted when discussing an Agile paper.

I was also thinking about the papers on Agile vs global warming, and the Agile papers generally read as far more balanced and generally go into much deeper detail than any global warming paper. So I think I'd personally trust the Agile papers more because they do at least have significant discussion on the negatives of the approach and generally cite negative studies themselves.

It's similar to the 'build vs maintain' debate we have in software. The article is about how great it was to build this up, but it's going to be someone else doing the hard work of maintaining the 'debt'.

I don't understand what this has to do with HN. Swedish immigration...? How..?

I guess it's interesting enough, but I just don't see the link. Why is it being upvoted so much?

Ah interesting. To me that just sounds like saying there's nothing you hate more than using a hammer when you could be using a screwdriver, and this is from using a lot of VS and Eclipse/idea. I can see where you're coming from though, and of course, different people are different.

At the end of the day, all that matters is what matters to you.

I think it's more that it doesn't really need to be said.

I use Android Studio, Xcode and Visual Studio daily. I prefer Android Studio by a mile because of the great integration with testing, build tools and command line. It's slightly more productive than Visual Studio, and both Visual Studio and Android Studio are leaps and bounds better than Xcode which spends 10 minutes trying to make sense of C++ code and then crashes when you scroll around a storyboard while throwing up bouncing colored doom balls every few minutes.

EDIT: Choosing a job because of those things sounds like something you'll regret in the future. There are far more important considerations than 'Java stink'.

This article is about as embarrassing as Android Studio is. Multiple areas are plain incorrect, and zero effort seems to be made to do any kind of investigation or provide any actual information.

Maybe we should stick to only posting techcrunch articles about finance or insider startup news, and find better sources for critiques in development environments.

Following that line, what use is history at all anymore? It's now just a hammer we can use to propagate whatever new idea we currently have. I don't really see the value in such a history.

Is a 30 day disclosure period really enough for something like this? It's obviously not possible to 'fix' big systems that rely on SHA-1 such as git or github in only 30 days. Hardware devices that use SHA-1 as a base for authenticating firmware updates?

But would anybody really want to use a hypermedia client versus a regular client? Of course not. The regular client can be optimized properly at the level it needs to be to make the user's interaction smoother.

Definitely, but that doesn't change the simple logic that if you have a conclusion, it's very easy to lose the truth of a historical situation by instead selecting an explanation that you want.

Let's say there is a historical event, and you know of 3 different possible explanations. Explanation 1 is what you learned as a child and it's clearly wrong now because of new evidence. Explanation 2 and 3 both fit all known facts and either one could be correct -- but only explanation 2 fits with your conclusion that the world is always heading towards liberalism (or conservatism or whatever you believe).

Do you pick explanation 2? Human nature says you do, and it's something we need to be aware of.

> You have to reify past events to fit current conclusions because you have no past understanding of those events that's reliable.

Do you really have to?

I believe the basic idea is to use that able-bodied distribution as an excuse to heavily raise taxes, with the goal being that the needy and disabled would not receive less. The logic being that if everyone has a safety net, we don't need to reward people as much since they now have lower risk.

Personally I don't believe that would actually happen, but the idea does account for that angle.

Getting permanently off fossil fuels is a one-off cost. Basic income is an ever increasing and perpetual cost.

I don't think they are comparable.

Interesting, but it seems you're coming from the position of having already concluded what the answer is, and then going back and fitting everything to that precondition.

How do you explain the fall of Athens and Rome, and the very long centuries of dark ages in Europe and West Asia?

So Liberalism is good and improves things, and therefore everyone will choose it?

Assuming the first part is true, just becomes something is better does not mean it will be chosen, so I don't think that argument works.

Ignoring the blatant lies by Infowars, this still seems pretty bad. Giving Zuckerberg the power to identify "hate speech" and work with politicians on it can only lead to abuse in the long run.

It's a shame you've been downvoted, but I think it just enforces your point on how uncomfortable it is for people to accept it.

> In my opinion. If anything is destroying journalism, it's the fact that half this country does not care for fact vs fiction.

Why is this a problem that needs to be solved though? A big part of being free is being able to choose what you get to care about, being able to choose what you get to read, and being able to have your own opinions.

Remove that, and you're no longer free. Would it be better to not be a free people? I can see the benefits of both sides, but I think freedom is a better long term solution for a multitude of historical reasons.