3 ms·

To be fair, shoddy science is probably common in every field. It's just that this is such a politically charged issue that it attracts far more attacks and att

by philk 17y ago

To be fair, shoddy science is probably common in every field. It's just that this is such a politically charged issue that it attracts far more attacks and attention.

lionhearted 17y ago
> To be fair, shoddy science is probably common in every field. It's just that this is such a politically charged issue that it attracts far more attacks and attention. You get a pass for making mistakes when: 1. You don't claim there's a "consensus" when anyone disagrees with you. 2. You don't try to paint people who disagree with you as "deniers" and otherwise ignorant and horrible people. 3. You don't try to suppress publication of dissenting views and campaign against people with dissenting views coming into important positions. 4. You're not asking for trillions of dollars of bureaucratic measures to be put into place by claiming there's an imminent catastrophe if we don't. 5. You take it seriously when someone points out an error in your method, instead of calling them "an idiot" or dismissing them in a cavalier fashion. 6. You're more concerned about finding out the truth of the matter than pushing your agenda and trying to fit the facts to your agenda. Really, the climate science people are reaping what they sowed. They were nasty to people who disagree with them, even boring unemotional scientist types who disagreed with them.
- _delirium 17y ago
  At least 1, 3, 5, and 6 are more common in many fields than you might hope. It's quite hard to get work published that is "outside the mainstream consensus", and how exactly that "consensus" is defined is not always so narrow as to only exclude genuine cranks. It particularly often excludes anything challenging the work of important people in the field who edit its important journals. And there are a ton of shady things that go on around #5/#6. Reviewers don't always honestly review work that shows theirs in a negative light, sometimes steal results from papers they've rejected, etc. It's what happens when lots of money, positions, and reputations ride on these sorts of things, along with the cutthroat professorship/tenure competition. Climate change just magnifies all that by having a lot more money and general politics (as opposed to only academic politics) riding on the result. Here's one of many recent non-climate-change examples: http://scienceblogs.com/ethicsandscience/2009/08/the_saga_of_the_journal_commen.php http://scienceblogs.com/ethicsandscience/2009/08/the_saga_of...
- david927 17y ago
  1. There's consensus that evolution is a valid theory. It doesn't mean every scientist is on board. That would be impossible. 2. If you say the world is flat or that evolution doesn't exist -- if you won't accept the result of the scientific process, you're holding us back. I don't approve of names, but you'll get one. 3. I'm sure creationists get surpressed too. Not all views are equal; you have to have superior science. If you do, you'll be listened to. 4. Trillions in beuracracy? Ha! Listen. The oil industry is the biggest industry the world has ever known with revenues of 8.5 million a second. It was 2 million a second just up until 2003. That' a huge jump for the world's biggest commodity. Sure it's partially because we're using more, but it's also because there's only so much oil. We know that. We have to switch. Let's do it now and save ourselves money and possibly help the environment in the process. (I think the pressing effects on such things as water supplies for poorer societies are more important, but I'm guessing your soul won't move you much, and that it's smarter to appeal to your wallet.) 5. Point out a rounding error in evolution. Who gives a fuck. Either prove it or disprove it, but rounding errors are not interesting to anyone but you and your ilk. 6. Watch Bill O'Reilly much? That's just conspiracy nonsense.

by philk 17y ago

To be fair, shoddy science is probably common in every field. It's just that this is such a politically charged issue that it attracts far more attacks and attention.

lionhearted 17y ago

> To be fair, shoddy science is probably common in every field. It's just that this is such a politically charged issue that it attracts far more attacks and attention. You get a pass for making mistakes when: 1. You don't claim there's a "consensus" when anyone disagrees with you. 2. You don't try to paint people who disagree with you as "deniers" and otherwise ignorant and horrible people. 3. You don't try to suppress publication of dissenting views and campaign against people with dissenting views coming into important positions. 4. You're not asking for trillions of dollars of bureaucratic measures to be put into place by claiming there's an imminent catastrophe if we don't. 5. You take it seriously when someone points out an error in your method, instead of calling them "an idiot" or dismissing them in a cavalier fashion. 6. You're more concerned about finding out the truth of the matter than pushing your agenda and trying to fit the facts to your agenda. Really, the climate science people are reaping what they sowed. They were nasty to people who disagree with them, even boring unemotional scientist types who disagreed with them.

_delirium 17y ago
At least 1, 3, 5, and 6 are more common in many fields than you might hope. It's quite hard to get work published that is "outside the mainstream consensus", and how exactly that "consensus" is defined is not always so narrow as to only exclude genuine cranks. It particularly often excludes anything challenging the work of important people in the field who edit its important journals. And there are a ton of shady things that go on around #5/#6. Reviewers don't always honestly review work that shows theirs in a negative light, sometimes steal results from papers they've rejected, etc. It's what happens when lots of money, positions, and reputations ride on these sorts of things, along with the cutthroat professorship/tenure competition. Climate change just magnifies all that by having a lot more money and general politics (as opposed to only academic politics) riding on the result. Here's one of many recent non-climate-change examples: http://scienceblogs.com/ethicsandscience/2009/08/the_saga_of_the_journal_commen.php http://scienceblogs.com/ethicsandscience/2009/08/the_saga_of...
david927 17y ago
1. There's consensus that evolution is a valid theory. It doesn't mean every scientist is on board. That would be impossible. 2. If you say the world is flat or that evolution doesn't exist -- if you won't accept the result of the scientific process, you're holding us back. I don't approve of names, but you'll get one. 3. I'm sure creationists get surpressed too. Not all views are equal; you have to have superior science. If you do, you'll be listened to. 4. Trillions in beuracracy? Ha! Listen. The oil industry is the biggest industry the world has ever known with revenues of 8.5 million a second. It was 2 million a second just up until 2003. That' a huge jump for the world's biggest commodity. Sure it's partially because we're using more, but it's also because there's only so much oil. We know that. We have to switch. Let's do it now and save ourselves money and possibly help the environment in the process. (I think the pressing effects on such things as water supplies for poorer societies are more important, but I'm guessing your soul won't move you much, and that it's smarter to appeal to your wallet.) 5. Point out a rounding error in evolution. Who gives a fuck. Either prove it or disprove it, but rounding errors are not interesting to anyone but you and your ilk. 6. Watch Bill O'Reilly much? That's just conspiracy nonsense.