And I reject the suggestion of dishonesty.
							
						
					Announcement
				
					Collapse
				
			
		
	
		
			
				No announcement yet.
				
			
				
	
What defence do we have against politically-motivated scientists?
				
					Collapse
				
			
		
	X
- 
	
	
	
		
	
	
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
	
	
 A lot of science is inhierently political because scientific discoveries can impact society, and thus come into conflict with vested interests that feel threatend by certain discoveries (like the tobacco companies trying to deny that smoking causes cancer). In the case of GW the vested intrests are Big Oil and Big Coal.
 Comment
- 
	
	
	
		
	
	
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
	
	
 Originally posted by Odin
 A lot of science is inhierently political because scientific discoveries can impact society, and thus come into conflict with vested interests that feel threatend by certain discoveries (like the tobacco companies trying to deny that smoking causes cancer). In the case of GW the vested intrests are Big Oil and Big Coal. 
 
 It really is quite peculiar. If the global warming evidence is so strong, why do its followers feel the need to launch ad hom attacks so often. Makes you wonder if they've realised the strength of their argument is weak.www.my-piano.blogspot
 Comment
- 
	
	
	
		
	
	
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
	
	
 Because the scepticism is due to believing there is nothing there to show global warming is dangerous. So the best way to put that view forward is to destroy the papers that disingenuously say it is dangerous (or the papers that try to lead one to that conclusion).Originally posted by TCO
 If the skeptic criticism is so strong, why don't they publish real science papers?www.my-piano.blogspot
 Comment
- 
	
	
	
		
	
	
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
	
	
 Then write papers that destroy papers. But still put your thoughts in complete form. With footnotes and axes labelled and arguments clearly articulated.Originally posted by Doddler
 
 
 Because the scepticism is due to believing there is nothing there to show global warming is dangerous. So the best way to put that view forward is to destroy the papers that disingenuously say it is dangerous (or the papers that try to lead one to that conclusion).
 Comment
- 
	
	
	
		
	
	
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
	
	
 In other words the sceptics are talking out of thier ass and so don't want thier BS to undergo peer review (peer review is the new Inquisition don't ya know? *sarcasm* ).Originally posted by Doddler
 
 
 Because the scepticism is due to believing there is nothing there to show global warming is dangerous. So the best way to put that view forward is to destroy the papers that disingenuously say it is dangerous (or the papers that try to lead one to that conclusion).  
 Comment
- 
	
	
	
		
	
	
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
	
	
 It's because they don't want to put their thoughts into complete and clear form. Because that means we can estimate the effect and likelihood of various skpetic issues and deconvolute the criticisms. They would rather muddle things and fight the PR battle without having to actually clearly analyize issues. They want to be able to make criticisms seem to have more impact then they can (if analyzed for bounding). And I say this being someone who is/was "on their side".Originally posted by Odin
 
 
 In other words the sceptics are talking out of thier ass and so don't want thier BS to undergo peer review (peer review is the new Inquisition don't ya know? *sarcasm* ).  
 Comment
- 
	
	
	
		
	
	
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
	
	
 You were on the side of global warming critics and have now switched?Originally posted by TCO
 
 
 It's because they don't want to put their thoughts into complete and clear form. Because that means we can estimate the effect and likelihood of various skpetic issues and deconvolute the criticisms. They would rather muddle things and fight the PR battle without having to actually clearly analyize issues. They want to be able to make criticisms seem to have more impact then they can (if analyzed for bounding). And I say this being someone who is/was "on their side"....people like to cry a lot... - Pekka
 ...we just argue without evidence, secure in our own superiority. - Snotty
 Comment
- 
	
	
	
		
	
	
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
	
	
 No TCO simply wants them to publish rather than be pansy blog writers. OTOH there has been what would appear to be a pattern of discrimination against the GW critics when they did request publishing. But that falls in the category of sour grapes.Originally posted by Caligastia
 
 
 You were on the side of global warming critics and have now switched?"Just puttin on the foil" - Jeff Hanson
 
 “In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.” - Jimmy Carter
 Comment
- 
	
	
	
		
	
	
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
	
	
 I'm sure someone will get published sooner or later. As TCO said, if they step up with a good paper, someone will publish it.Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
 
 
 No TCO simply wants them to publish rather than be pansy blog writers. OTOH there has been what would appear to be a pattern of discrimination against the GW critics when they did request publishing. But that falls in the category of sour grapes....people like to cry a lot... - Pekka
 ...we just argue without evidence, secure in our own superiority. - Snotty
 Comment

Comment