>> No scientist ever says [the science is beyond dispute, that only people who are paid shills disagree], you can always fight science with science I wish real

>> No scientist ever says [the science is beyond dispute, that only people who are paid shills disagree], you can always fight science with science I wish real scientists behaved in the way you imagine they do. The world would be a better place for it. Unfortunately, real scientists do all these things and more. They call themselves scientists, but don't live up to the role. Here's the same article I cited elsewhere in the thread (beyond a now flagged/killed post), by James Hansen in 2008. A famous scientist indeed but just one example of many possible examples. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/jun/23/climatechange.carbonemissions https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/jun/23/climatec... - "Now, as then, I can assert that these conclusions have a certainty exceeding 99%." - "fossil companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, as tobacco companies discredited the smoking-cancer link. Methods are sophisticated, including funding to help shape school textbook discussions of global warming." Impossible to get clearer than that: exactly the kinds of statements I was complaining about. And what of checking their data, reviewing their methods, reproducing their results? In short, why not fight science with science? Again, sadly you're describing imaginary scientists, the sort of people we would hope do climatology. Actual climatologists do NOT allow their science to be fought with science and actively go out of their way to prevent people checking their maths, reviewing their methods and reproducing their results. Here's an old story that sums up what happens when someone - an invited IPCC reviewer no less - actually tries to do that kind of review https://climateaudit.org/2007/03/28/accessing-hegerl-data/ https://climateaudit.org/2007/03/28/accessing-hegerl-data/ One of the most important IPCC representations is the supposedly tremendous quality control of its review process. I’ve mentioned in passing on a number of occasions that, when I sought to obtain supporting data for then unpublished articles, IPCC threatened to expel me as a reviewer. [...] Osborn immediately replied, calling the request that the data be archived an abuse of my position as an IPCC peer reviewer. Rosanne D’Arrigo (CG2-2590) wrote to Osborn and Briffa, advocating that I be “fired” as an IPCC reviewer. D’Arrigo urged the Climategaters to be “very cautious about our emails as Lord V will stop at nothing” Universities don't care if their professors are engaged in pseudo-science so these stories never have happy endings. The bad apples always win, are never fired and media/politics repeats their bogus claims ad nauseum.