Fox News: 120% Of The Public Thinks Scientists May Falsify GW Data
- Thread starter MarianLH
- Start date
That's the same study I linked to upthread when I said "there are no peer-reviewed scientific papers that dispute anthropogenic climate change". It's online here.
Denialists might occasionally find a "scientist" on their side--like John Picard's oil company VP--but they can't ever produce any science.
Marian
I'm not avoiding anything. I'm not even remotely qualified to debate this stuff on a reasonable intellectual level.
But the way I see the two sides to this debate look like this:
In the blue corner there are thousands of smart people who devoted their professional lives and many years to studying the planet who came to the conclusion that the climate is changing in a way that poses serious problems for humanity and that humanity contributed to that. And in the red corner there are a bunch of ignorant right-wingers who think Al Gore is a comic-book like super-villain who masterminded a gigantic conspiracy of all these scientists to bluff the public into spending tons of money for planting trees in China or something.
And I tend to believe the guys in the blue corner.
But the way I see the two sides to this debate look like this:
In the blue corner there are thousands of smart people who devoted their professional lives and many years to studying the planet who came to the conclusion that the climate is changing in a way that poses serious problems for humanity and that humanity contributed to that. And in the red corner there are a bunch of ignorant right-wingers who think Al Gore is a comic-book like super-villain who masterminded a gigantic conspiracy of all these scientists to bluff the public into spending tons of money for planting trees in China or something.
And I tend to believe the guys in the blue corner.
TheLonelySquire
Vice Admiral
I doubt that's the case. But either way, when the "science" is falsified in favor of global warming what does that tell you?
TheLonelySquire
Vice Admiral
I was commenting on Deckard's post. Sorry.
Nice interpretation. Here's the way I see it.
In the red corner are people that don't want yet another government imposed tax based on falsified data that has been manipulated and exposed.
In the blue corner are the eggheads who have gotten billions in grants in exchange for their "research". Some of whom have resigned in disgrace.
I'll go with the red corner.
I took a look at some of those emails earlier. Even the ones singled out as "especially damning" seemed to be generic discussions of the Freedom Of Information act. I don't think I have enough context to offer a full interpretation, but the fact that those very emails derided "deniers" suggests to me that maybe there was some ambiguous data which the scientists in question chose to disregard to strengthen their case. It certainly doesn't automatically imply the entire case was wrong.
TheLonelySquire
Vice Admiral
Yeah, that's what I was looking for! Either way it's been exposed.
TheLonelySquire
Vice Admiral
Okay, let's say you're right. Then the jury is still out and it doesn't justify taxing us out the a$$.
Nothing has been exposed. One scientist's misconduct doesn't reflect in any way on other scientists. At worst this one paper this guy was writing is trash, but not others that aren't linked to the first one in any way.
You can keep your gasoline, which is taxed out the ass. Whatever.
Ah. Anti-intellectualism.
You don't understand how grants work. This is how a significant portion of all scientific research is funded and people don't personally profit nearly to the degree your disingenuous comment is implying.
I must step in here to correct this notion. I am a scientist and have been working with scientists for a number of years. Scientists are as human as everyone else. When it comes to politics, we are at least as political as the average person. That doesn't mean that scientists in general let their politics guide their science, but to think every scientist out there is completely objective in their research is naive. Despite what some here seem to think, most scientists are motivated by the same things as the rest of the world. We aren't Vulcans.
I remember reading a study some time ago about scientific publications and how often they are wrong or right. The study found that the most direct correlation with whether or not a study was correct was with the level of controversy around the subject. The more controversial a subject was, the more likely the published results were to be wrong. So, a publication on the function of a particular enzyme or the properties of some alloy is likely to be correct because nobody in the rest of the world really cares. However, a publication on cloning of human stem cells or climate change is more likely to be wrong. Just something to keep in mind when reading about science in the popular press.
TheLonelySquire
Vice Admiral
I must step in here to correct this notion. I am a scientist and have been working with scientists for a number of years. Scientists are as human as everyone else. When it comes to politics, we are at least as political as the average person. That doesn't mean that scientists in general let their politics guide their science, but to think every scientist out there is completely objective in their research is naive. Despite what some here seem to think, most scientists are motivated by the same things as the rest of the world. We aren't Vulcans.
I remember reading a study some time ago about scientific publications and how often they are wrong or right. The study found that the most direct correlation with whether or not a study was correct was with the level of controversy around the subject. The more controversial a subject was, the more likely the published results were to be wrong. So, a publication on the function of a particular enzyme or the properties of some alloy is likely to be correct because nobody in the rest of the world really cares. However, a publication on cloning of human stem cells or climate change is more likely to be wrong. Just something to keep in mind when reading about science in the popular press.
Thanks. Sorry for the use of the term "egghead" by the way. My bad.
Just my opinion, but it seems like one would have to be remarkedly uninformed OR simply pressing a political point, in order to consider the issue "exposed".
TheLonelySquire
Vice Admiral
I never claimed the issue hasn't been politicized on both sides.
Yet you've only decried the politicization of one side, which indicates that you are either politicizing the issue yourself, or that you are remarkedly uninformed.
Okay, assuming for a second that they were actually discussing hiding data in these emails, why would they need to do that since according to you tens of thousands of other scientists with vastly different backgrounds and alleged agendas have already gone along with the conspiracy? Why continue to preach to the choir?
It's not like peer-reviewed papers are geared towards the general populace, it's geared towards other scientists in the field (hence the name). A field which according to you has already bought the cover story hook, line, and sinker and is perpetuating a conspiracy which would make the Moon landing, JFK assassination, and 9/11 conspiracies combined look like child's play to maintain just by sheer numbers of people involved alone.
I bet you would consider each of those conspiracies completely ridiculous without giving it a second thought, yet here you are perpetuating an even bigger one because of what, wanting to avoid potentially higher taxes (which isn't even a given)? I don't get it.
Explain why even many nations and organizations who actually have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo on fossil fuel use have backed up the research and signed the Kyoto Protocol? If the conspiracy is economically motivated, what's their motivation?
Last edited: