Actually you answered most of your points yourself when you said of two people who are science trained
'Then their opposition to short term pain for their own interests becomes a little clearer.'
Anti science? Littered means that you yourself accuse some 'denialist' scientists of having an agenda contrary to science (as you did above) which is quite a lot of scientists in the here and now who are 'rogue'.
No, it isn't. And "littered" was purely your invention.
The point of course is that that can work on the other side and in science, as in many walks of life, once you nail your colours to the mast that is the route you are following.
Kudos, counts for a lot in science, a change of mind is an admission of being wrong, not many like to do that. That works for both sides. I am not sure why you deny that is even possible.
I don't. That's Spencer's problem, his data showed no warming for years, until the errors were discovered and it showed the same warming as all the other data series. He still emotionally can't accept climate change having been opposed to it for so long.
But most scientists do change direction and progress as science progresses. that's how science has progressed and why we don't still have an Aristotelian view of physics.
In Roy Spencer's case, denial goes deeper than mere emotional attachment to his original flawed data. As a creationist, he has gone on record as believing that global warming can't be a problem, because God won't allow it to be a problem.
No, it isn't. And "littered" was purely your invention.
I don't. That's Spencer's problem, his data showed no warming for years, until the errors were discovered and it showed the same warming as all the other data series. He still emotionally can't accept climate change having been opposed to it for so long.
But most scientists do change direction and progress as science progresses. that's how science has progressed and why we don't still have an Aristotelian view of physics.
No littered is what research has found. There are quite few cases of scientists being involved in some form of deception or data manipulation for their own ends and many more where they are involved with maintaining their positions. I do not disagree that the two you mentioned could have their reasons questioned because of how it would affect them personally. I believe that applies equally to scientists on the other side as well. If grants are involved, if jobs depend on it, if kudos is sought, if specific results are expected, if opprobrium will be piled on them if they find against the consensus (and that has happened); many reasons to find a conclusion as opposed to reaching it.
Your example of one scientist unwilling to change and desperately trying keep his position is of course the point, if the man was on the other side to start with the same pressures would apply.
No littered is what research has found. There are quite few cases of scientists being involved in some form of deception or data manipulation for their own ends and many more where they are involved with maintaining their positions.
That'simply not true, the numbers of fraudulent scientists is tiny.
I do not disagree that the two you mentioned could have their reasons questioned because of how it would affect them personally. I believe that applies equally to scientists on the other side as well. If grants are involved, if jobs depend on it, if kudos is sought, if specific results are expected, if opprobrium will be piled on them if they find against the consensus (and that has happened); many reasons to find a conclusion as opposed to reaching it.
But scientists work is subject to independent peer review and has to stand the test of time. In 50 years time, with all the IPCC predictions coming to pass, no-one will remember these two. Scientists who's work is wrong will always get found out by scientific progress.
Your example of one scientist unwilling to change and desperately trying keep his position is of course the point, if the man was on the other side to start with the same pressures would apply.
Maybe, but that individual wouldn't infect almost all other scientists of many other disciplines globally.
Did you actually read the article and see what is being suggested?
It mostly suggests that Lewis Page is an idiot who writes garbage about science. But we already knew that. The only surprise is that he managed to get through an entire article without including the word "boffin".
That'simply not true, the numbers of fraudulent scientists is tiny.
But scientists work is subject to independent peer review and has to stand the test of time. In 50 years time, with all the IPCC predictions coming to pass, no-one will remember these two. Scientists who's work is wrong will always get found out by scientific progress.
Maybe, but that individual wouldn't infect almost all other scientists of many other disciplines globally.
Then maybe you are agreeing. The same situation can exist on both sides. Finding out through progress after a couple of generations of course and the accuracy (or inaccuracy) of predictions does not help those who may have been forced into action by an erroneous prediction.
One of the major problems is that the forecasting of doom and gloom has been allowed to be in the domain of those who over egg the pudding, many of whom are not scientists. IT is a bit like the anti road lobby in the 70s where it was stated that an area the size of Rutland was being concreted over every year. It was based on accurate information but it referred to total land take for any new road which included the old road, brownfield sites, landscaping, temporary works and all accommodation works. The language has polarised and camps are becoming entrenched as opposed to discussive. But that is human nature.
Oh and the number of known fraudulent scientists is tiny. Some surveys indicate that within science research known variation from good practice has been observed by above 50% of scientists. Also if the fraudulent scientists are tiny why is that you believe they all exist, as a fairly large body, on the minority side of the consensus?
[QUOTE=njp;74039571]It mostly suggests that Lewis Page is an idiot who writes garbage about science. But we already knew that. The only surprise is that he managed to get through an entire article without including the word "boffin".[/QUOTE]
There's that Pavlovian kneejerk again.
You really are so predictable.
That'simply not true, the numbers of fraudulent scientists is tiny.
But scientists work is subject to independent peer review and has to stand the test of time. In 50 years time, with all the IPCC predictions coming to pass, no-one will remember these two. Scientists who's work is wrong will always get found out by scientific progress.
Maybe, but that individual wouldn't infect almost all other scientists of many other disciplines globally.
Then maybe you are agreeing. The same situation can exist on both sides.
I'm puzzled by your implication that there are just two sides, rather equally balanced.
The reality is that you have mainstream climate science, and then you have a whole raft of alternatives to mainstream climate science, often mutually contradictory, and largely unsupported by any published science. Most "sceptics" don't care - all they want to hear is that the IPCC are wrong and so we don't need to do anything - but the spectacle of the proponents of "alternative viewpoints" squabbling amongst themselves about whose crackpot theory is right is a joy to behold.
Oh and the number of known fraudulent scientists is tiny. Some surveys indicate that within science research known variation from good practice has been observed by above 50% of scientists. Also if the fraudulent scientists are tiny why is that you believe they all exist, as a fairly large body, on the minority side of the consensus?
A "variation from good practice" is a long way from fraud. And the point is that scientific results have to be replicated, so outliers get squashed. The problem arises when people act on results which turn out to be fraudulent - and this seems to be mostly a problem in the pharmaceutical industry.
I don't know of any mainstream climate scientist who has been found to have committed scientific fraud. Do you?
I'm puzzled by your implication that there are just two sides, rather equally balanced.
The reality is that you have mainstream climate science, and then you have a whole raft of alternatives to mainstream climate science, often mutually contradictory, and largely unsupported by any published science. Most "sceptics" don't care - all they want to hear is that the IPCC are wrong and so we don't need to do anything - but the spectacle of the proponents of "alternative viewpoints" squabbling amongst themselves about whose crackpot theory is right is a joy to behold.
A "variation from good practice" is a long way from fraud. And the point is that scientific results have to be replicated, so outliers get squashed. The problem arises when people act on results which turn out to be fraudulent - and this seems to be mostly a problem in the pharmaceutical industry.
I don't know of any mainstream climate scientist who has been found to have committed scientific fraud. Do you?
Yes we guessed you didn't know of any but are there any?
Then maybe you are agreeing. The same situation can exist on both sides.
No, it can't. Science has peer review and the inevitable progress that means wrong work gets found out.
Finding out through progress after a couple of generations of course and the accuracy (or inaccuracy) of predictions does not help those who may have been forced into action by an erroneous prediction.
But it's not a prediction, it's mainstream science that started saying in the 30s the planet would warm and it has warmed. Huge areas of GCSE Physics would need to be wrong or that not to continue with more CO2 all other things being equal.
One of the major problems is that the forecasting of doom and gloom has been allowed to be in the domain of those who over egg the pudding, many of whom are not scientists. IT is a bit like the anti road lobby in the 70s where it was stated that an area the size of Rutland was being concreted over every year.
Again we have your peculiar memories of extreme arguments you try and present as some sort of mainstream opinion. You could probably find people in the 70s who thought we should give up all cars. So what?
It was based on accurate information but it referred to total land take for any new road which included the old road, brownfield sites, landscaping, temporary works and all accommodation works. The language has polarised and camps are becoming entrenched as opposed to discussive. But that is human nature.
Oh and the number of known fraudulent scientists is tiny. Some surveys indicate that within science research known variation from good practice has been observed by above 50% of scientists.
"variation from good practice" isn't fraud. Does the horrendous mangling of logic you have to make to try and sustain your argument not give you pause for thought at all?
Also if the fraudulent scientists are tiny why is that you believe they all exist, as a fairly large body, on the minority side of the consensus?
I don't. I've said before that the number of sceptical scientist is tiny. The large body is US Republicans trying to perpetuate their lifestyle at the expense of the future eagerly followed by lots of gullible people worldwide.
Yes we guessed you didn't know of any but are there any?
Well, I've seen no evidence of any. Same thing with Unicorns.
But now you are here, and we are talking about fraudulent data, perhaps you could tell me where Piers Corbyn got his unattributed graph? It's about 4 minutes in to the video that someone posted earlier in the thread. That would be most helpful. I did ask the person who posted it but he hasn't come back.
The same as if I'm wrong about the Earth being round.
I think it's fairly well established that the word is round but climate science is very much a work in progress containing many flaws and uncertainties.
So it's possible you could be wrong.
I'm puzzled by your implication that there are just two sides, rather equally balanced.
The reality is that you have mainstream climate science, and then you have a whole raft of alternatives to mainstream climate science, often mutually contradictory, and largely unsupported by any published science. Most "sceptics" don't care - all they want to hear is that the IPCC are wrong and so we don't need to do anything - but the spectacle of the proponents of "alternative viewpoints" squabbling amongst themselves about whose crackpot theory is right is a joy to behold.
A "variation from good practice" is a long way from fraud. And the point is that scientific results have to be replicated, so outliers get squashed. The problem arises when people act on results which turn out to be fraudulent - and this seems to be mostly a problem in the pharmaceutical industry.
I don't know of any mainstream climate scientist who has been found to have committed scientific fraud. Do you?
From the point of view of man made climate change there appears to be two sides. Those who agree and those who disagree. I did not infer equal balance. I accept that a person's personal situation can affect his conclusions as stated by andy, I only made the observation that that can occur on the majority opinion side as well. For some reason he seemed to think this was impossible, or maybe he meant less likely but that was not the impression he gave.
A variation from good practice is observed by many, what that results in who knows. We are however running our lives on the advice from science and I reiterate it is those who over egg the pudding who are presenting the work of scientists that are the problem. It seems on occasion that a widely inaccurate scare story is allowed its place without refute as a means to scare, when it is found to be false it can be denied as ever being a scientific, peer reviewed prediction.
I never said any climate change scientist had committed fraud. I adopted the same tone as andy and assessed personal situation as having a possible (probable?) effect on conclusion.
From the point of view of man made climate change there appears to be two sides. Those who agree and those who disagree.
There are many "sides". You need to spend more time reading "sceptic" arguments. Unless you accept "The IPCC are wrong" as a valid argument in its own right, the quality of these often contradictory gain-saying arguments is important. They can't all be right!
A variation from good practice is observed by many, what that results in who knows
How about a link to this study so we can all see what it says?
I think it's fairly well established that the word is round but climate science is very much a work in progress containing many flaws and uncertainties.
So it's possible you could be wrong.
I think you'll find that the precise size and shape of the Earth is just as much "work in progress" as climate science. But the basics of both are not in doubt.
From the point of view of man made climate change there appears to be two sides. Those who agree and those who disagree. I did not infer equal balance. I accept that a person's personal situation can affect his conclusions as stated by andy, I only made the observation that that can occur on the majority opinion side as well. For some reason
"some reason"? Did you not read any of my replies?
Climate change is not in most scientists interests, they would have jobs without it and a much easier life.
And peer review prevents "a person's personal situation can affect his conclusions" from tainting science.
There are many "sides". You need to spend more time reading "sceptic" arguments. Unless you accept "The IPCC are wrong" as a valid argument in its own right, the quality of these often contradictory gain-saying arguments is important. They can't all be right!
How about a link to this study so we can all see what it says?
Life is too short, the point of course is how information is presented popularly.
If it makes you happier I can change both to all, the point there still remains.
Comments
But most scientists do change direction and progress as science progresses. that's how science has progressed and why we don't still have an Aristotelian view of physics.
No littered is what research has found. There are quite few cases of scientists being involved in some form of deception or data manipulation for their own ends and many more where they are involved with maintaining their positions. I do not disagree that the two you mentioned could have their reasons questioned because of how it would affect them personally. I believe that applies equally to scientists on the other side as well. If grants are involved, if jobs depend on it, if kudos is sought, if specific results are expected, if opprobrium will be piled on them if they find against the consensus (and that has happened); many reasons to find a conclusion as opposed to reaching it.
Your example of one scientist unwilling to change and desperately trying keep his position is of course the point, if the man was on the other side to start with the same pressures would apply.
Will it?
Without evidence that it actually has coloured their views on climate change then it simply an attempt to discredit them.
Is that why ninety-five per cent of the world's scientist conclude that climate change is a man made event?
Did you actually read the article and see what is being suggested?
Did you actually read the posts?
I was specifically referring to the OP's quote of:
the more scientific and mathematical knowledge a person has, the less worried about climate change they tend to be.
It seems to be implying that all scientists are stupid.
No, the result of some research is implying that. EDITED
I'll find the link.
Found it.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/29/science_and_maths_knowledge_makes_you_sceptical/
Then maybe you are agreeing. The same situation can exist on both sides. Finding out through progress after a couple of generations of course and the accuracy (or inaccuracy) of predictions does not help those who may have been forced into action by an erroneous prediction.
One of the major problems is that the forecasting of doom and gloom has been allowed to be in the domain of those who over egg the pudding, many of whom are not scientists. IT is a bit like the anti road lobby in the 70s where it was stated that an area the size of Rutland was being concreted over every year. It was based on accurate information but it referred to total land take for any new road which included the old road, brownfield sites, landscaping, temporary works and all accommodation works. The language has polarised and camps are becoming entrenched as opposed to discussive. But that is human nature.
Oh and the number of known fraudulent scientists is tiny. Some surveys indicate that within science research known variation from good practice has been observed by above 50% of scientists. Also if the fraudulent scientists are tiny why is that you believe they all exist, as a fairly large body, on the minority side of the consensus?
There's that Pavlovian kneejerk again.
You really are so predictable.
And if you're wrong what then?
The reality is that you have mainstream climate science, and then you have a whole raft of alternatives to mainstream climate science, often mutually contradictory, and largely unsupported by any published science. Most "sceptics" don't care - all they want to hear is that the IPCC are wrong and so we don't need to do anything - but the spectacle of the proponents of "alternative viewpoints" squabbling amongst themselves about whose crackpot theory is right is a joy to behold.
A "variation from good practice" is a long way from fraud. And the point is that scientific results have to be replicated, so outliers get squashed. The problem arises when people act on results which turn out to be fraudulent - and this seems to be mostly a problem in the pharmaceutical industry.
I don't know of any mainstream climate scientist who has been found to have committed scientific fraud. Do you?
Yes we guessed you didn't know of any but are there any?
The same as if I'm wrong about the Earth being round.
But now you are here, and we are talking about fraudulent data, perhaps you could tell me where Piers Corbyn got his unattributed graph? It's about 4 minutes in to the video that someone posted earlier in the thread. That would be most helpful. I did ask the person who posted it but he hasn't come back.
I think it's fairly well established that the word is round but climate science is very much a work in progress containing many flaws and uncertainties.
So it's possible you could be wrong.
Well God said it was round and he was wrong.
From the point of view of man made climate change there appears to be two sides. Those who agree and those who disagree. I did not infer equal balance. I accept that a person's personal situation can affect his conclusions as stated by andy, I only made the observation that that can occur on the majority opinion side as well. For some reason he seemed to think this was impossible, or maybe he meant less likely but that was not the impression he gave.
A variation from good practice is observed by many, what that results in who knows. We are however running our lives on the advice from science and I reiterate it is those who over egg the pudding who are presenting the work of scientists that are the problem. It seems on occasion that a widely inaccurate scare story is allowed its place without refute as a means to scare, when it is found to be false it can be denied as ever being a scientific, peer reviewed prediction.
I never said any climate change scientist had committed fraud. I adopted the same tone as andy and assessed personal situation as having a possible (probable?) effect on conclusion.
How about a link to this study so we can all see what it says?
I think you'll find that the precise size and shape of the Earth is just as much "work in progress" as climate science. But the basics of both are not in doubt.
"some reason"? Did you not read any of my replies?
Climate change is not in most scientists interests, they would have jobs without it and a much easier life.
And peer review prevents "a person's personal situation can affect his conclusions" from tainting science.
Life is too short, the point of course is how information is presented popularly.
If it makes you happier I can change both to all, the point there still remains.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19478950