5 ms·

Reminds me of "My Unhappy Life as a Climate Heretic" https://wn.wsj.com/stories/c81eb3c4-e367-4087-93aa-1f90b5de1cfd.html https://wn.wsj.com/stories/c81eb3c4-e3

Reminds me of "My Unhappy Life as a Climate Heretic" https://wn.wsj.com/stories/c81eb3c4-e367-4087-93aa-1f90b5de1cfd.html https://wn.wsj.com/stories/c81eb3c4-e367-4087-93aa-1f90b5de1... Professor Pielke (his words) "was under constant attack for years by activists, journalists and politicians." The pressure to stop asking critical questions became overwhelming. Seems there could be a place for viewpoints that don't go with the consensus, especially in an arena that is so highly politicized.

davesque 10y ago
But it's not a political issue. How politicized it is shouldn't matter.
- throwanem 10y ago
  There's power to be had by convincing people. It's political.
- adameast9000 10y ago
  In a perfect world yes, but lots of scientific disciplines are heavily influenced by politics and public opinion in terms of funding, University support, etc. We can't pretend it doesn't matter
  - splawn 10y ago
    It doesn't matter to the supporting data. Thermometers don't run off of opinion. I guess that is what we need to convince people? lol
    - seewhatIsee 10y ago
      The money to fund the thermostats may depend on opinion.
      - splawn 10y ago
        In a fantasy world complete with international conspirators with god-like powers..... sure. If you don't like my use of the word "fantasy" then by all means provide some evidence.
- jjn2009 10y ago
  These studies effect government policies. Any debate of facts which effect government policies is political.
- YCode 10y ago
  We define how "political" an issue is precisely by how politicized it has become. I agree that it shouldn't matter, but unfortunately it does and (ironically!) we can't pretend things are different just because that better suits our point of view.
splawn 10y ago
When a line of questioning flat out ignores huge amounts of evidence then it can not be considered "critical".
alistproducer2 10y ago
How is this the top comment? The use of the word heretic in the article subtly implies the consensus on climate change is based on faith and not tons and tons of research. It's not that there is no place for different viewpoints, there just comes a time when the burden of proof for contrarian research becomes so high that most of it never clears the bar.
cortesoft 10y ago
Yeah, I have been spending YEARS arguing for my Flat Earth theory, but I am constantly under attack for my alternate views! There should be a place for my viewpoints!
- sctb 10y ago
  Please don't post deliberately inflammatory sarcasm, that's jet fuel for flamewars.
drewbuschhorn 10y ago
Just to be clear, Pielke is also in the op article testifying to the panel. So obviously there already is a place for his viewpoints, and given all the other people testifying have jobs as well, places for their viewpoints also. Part of being a scientist is accepting that every publication can end your career if you get it really wrong. This isn't science camp. If you `rm -rf /` a live server, you should have your actions evaluated carefully to see why that happened and if you acted appropriately. Professional science is the same, if you can't prove your case then there are consequences, saying you're right because you're being picked on doesn't cut it.

davesque 10y ago

But it's not a political issue. How politicized it is shouldn't matter.

throwanem 10y ago
There's power to be had by convincing people. It's political.
adameast9000 10y ago
In a perfect world yes, but lots of scientific disciplines are heavily influenced by politics and public opinion in terms of funding, University support, etc. We can't pretend it doesn't matter
- splawn 10y ago
  It doesn't matter to the supporting data. Thermometers don't run off of opinion. I guess that is what we need to convince people? lol
  - seewhatIsee 10y ago
    The money to fund the thermostats may depend on opinion.
    - splawn 10y ago
      In a fantasy world complete with international conspirators with god-like powers..... sure. If you don't like my use of the word "fantasy" then by all means provide some evidence.
jjn2009 10y ago
These studies effect government policies. Any debate of facts which effect government policies is political.
YCode 10y ago
We define how "political" an issue is precisely by how politicized it has become. I agree that it shouldn't matter, but unfortunately it does and (ironically!) we can't pretend things are different just because that better suits our point of view.

splawn 10y ago

When a line of questioning flat out ignores huge amounts of evidence then it can not be considered "critical".

alistproducer2 10y ago

How is this the top comment? The use of the word heretic in the article subtly implies the consensus on climate change is based on faith and not tons and tons of research. It's not that there is no place for different viewpoints, there just comes a time when the burden of proof for contrarian research becomes so high that most of it never clears the bar.

cortesoft 10y ago

Yeah, I have been spending YEARS arguing for my Flat Earth theory, but I am constantly under attack for my alternate views! There should be a place for my viewpoints!

sctb 10y ago
Please don't post deliberately inflammatory sarcasm, that's jet fuel for flamewars.

drewbuschhorn 10y ago

Just to be clear, Pielke is also in the op article testifying to the panel. So obviously there already is a place for his viewpoints, and given all the other people testifying have jobs as well, places for their viewpoints also. Part of being a scientist is accepting that every publication can end your career if you get it really wrong. This isn't science camp. If you `rm -rf /` a live server, you should have your actions evaluated carefully to see why that happened and if you acted appropriately. Professional science is the same, if you can't prove your case then there are consequences, saying you're right because you're being picked on doesn't cut it.