NASA Types Revolt Against Warmers

As applied to AGW, "peer review" as a practical matter means reviewed only by other Warmers.

The AGW has politicized and corrupted "peer review" too.

 

Peer review is a low bar that screens out only the most obvious crap. Climate skeptics get past peer-review all the time, when they have something worthwhile to say. The problem with the entire skeptical oeuvre is that they don't have a theory that makes any sense. Or, they have half a dozen that contradict each other, which amounts to pretty much the same thing.

 

If not this then what explanation isn't science. You warmmongers fall back on that position when you have no other argument. Saying that an alternative explanation is scientifically needed to falsify a theory is crap.

So you are saying that since different people who dont follow the global warming line propose compeating theories that cant all be true then we must accept AGW theory as truth because more people fall under its orthodoxy?

 

Now where's the ad hominem coming from? You take offense because we insist that a rocket scientist is not a climate scientist until he has done something to be recognized as a climate scientist but when the discussion comes around to climate scientists you insist they're all corrupt frauds. Until you can claim understanding of climate science by having studied it for years anything you say to try to discredit them is nothing but ad hominem until you've peer reviewed their work and can knowingly claim they're not doing their jobs right. But of course shame on me for calling your attack of the character of an entire branch of scientists ad hominem.

 

The rot in climate science may be just a subset of a more generalized rot in science as a whole. The stink has become pervasive enough that even the usually-clueless NYT takes notice.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/s...etractions-prompts-calls-for-reform.html?_r=1

quote:
“…a dysfunctional scientific climate…”

“…science had turned into a winner-take-all game with perverse incentives that lead scientists to cut corners…”

“University laboratories count on a steady stream of grants from the government…”

Taxcutter says:
Now we are getting to the root of the problem.

Quote:
“…many universities expect scientists to draw an increasing part of their salaries from grants, and these pressures have influenced how scientists are promoted.”

Taxcutter says:
AGW is just a symptom of the overall problem. At one time science was on a pedestal and was trusted. Today it grubs for government grants. It cannot help but become politicized. As such, it is no longer trustworthy. Science now is just another special interest group seeking taxpayer money.

 

The rot in climate science may be just a subset of a more generalized rot in science as a whole. The stink has become pervasive enough that even the usually-clueless NYT takes notice.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/s...etractions-prompts-calls-for-reform.html?_r=1

quote:
“…a dysfunctional scientific climate…”

“…science had turned into a winner-take-all game with perverse incentives that lead scientists to cut corners…”

“University laboratories count on a steady stream of grants from the government…”

Taxcutter says:
Now we are getting to the root of the problem.

Quote:
“…many universities expect scientists to draw an increasing part of their salaries from grants, and these pressures have influenced how scientists are promoted.”

Taxcutter says:
AGW is just a symptom of the overall problem. At one time science was on a pedestal and was trusted. Today it grubs for government grants. It cannot help but become politicized. As such, it is no longer trustworthy. Science now is just another special interest group seeking taxpayer money.

 

From Forum rules:

"(8 ) Hyperlinking to websites that require user registration to view a page with the relevant information is discouraged. If you do post such hyperlinks, please put a notice that registration is required above the hyperlink."

 

So you admit you don't actually believe in any science because you think all scientists are just coming up with nonsense theories to take your tax money?

LOL

 

A professional does what he has to do to keep the revenue stream flowing.

 

I think that point is that blind appeal to authority is a proven fallacy both in the world of logic and the real world. The authorities are human.

 

When I was quite young I read about "scientists" who had proven that various racial or ethnic groups were different and distinct from humans. My son was recently in Turkey and was discussing the massacre of Kurds and a Turk explained, quite seriously, that "scientists" had proven that Kurds aren't human. We've seen the same with blacks and jews.

Then, I grew up with hoards of "scientists" saying that nuclear war and the subsequent nuclear winter which would annhilate all life on earch was inevitable unless the U.S. disarmed unilaterally. Obviously, they were wrong and their statements as scientists were not at all scientific.

Then there were the ads about the health benefits of smoking, how one gasoline was clearly superior to another, and this aspirin was better than the other. All nonsense.

Now, we are producing more people who can't read, can't do basic math, but can vote and panic at the drop of a hate.

Just think, for the AGW hysterics, Al Gore is the guru.

Would you accept any finding of a government panel?

 

Scientists as private citizens might "say" any kind of crap that comes to mind. Passing peer review is a different matter. What scientists really say to their colleagues in a peer reviewed journal, and what people think scientists say, as reported by the media, are often two completely different things.

So while you may think "scientists said" something, I challenge you to find a single peer-reviewed article that says Kurds, blacks, or Jews aren't human. And I challenge you to find a single peer-reviewed article that said nuclear winter was "inevitable unless the U.S. disarmed unilaterally." Go ahead and try. And when you're done actually reading the peer-reviewed literature, you will have a different view of what scientists really say.

And all non-scientific PR, and none of it peer-reviewed.

There must be thousands of posts on this very site from those of us who accept the reality of global warming and the scientific consensus. Find me a single post that cites Al Gore as a scientific source. Just one.

Can't? Not surprised. The whole Al Gore business is a right-wing lie: if we pretend that Al Gore is behind it, we can then pretend it's all political and therefore non-scientific. And you've fallen for that lie.

Do you think the Moon landing was a hoax too? That was a government job.