Tweet
And I reject the suggestion of dishonesty.
-
www.my-piano.blogspot -
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
-
Which is why Odin it's the scientific arguments that should be investigated, not the people making them.www.my-piano.blogspotComment
-
huh?Originally posted by Doddler
And I reject the suggestion of dishonesty.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.blogspotComment
-
If the skeptic criticism is so strong, why don't they publish real science papers?Comment
-
Originally posted by TCO
If the skeptic criticism is so strong, why don't they publish real science papers?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.blogspotComment
-
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. - SnottyComment
-
Re: Re: Re: What defence do we have against politically-motivated scientists?
Replace peer review by a board of inquisitors, then.Originally posted by Doddler
What if the peers have the same ideologically-driven bias?In Soviet Russia, Fake borises YOU.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 CarterComment
-
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. - SnottyComment
Comment