Weatherchick Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics

[forrestkc]

No one is claiming that Global Warming Deniers should not have the right to be purveyors of lies and misinformation, but rather if they are going to exercise that right, and be propogandists for various ideological groups and the fossil fuels industry, rather than ethical scientists, then they ought to marked as such.

Would you disagree with that?

May I copy and paste this is the Pallywood thread, only changing "Global Warming Deniers" to something like Palestinian News media or Arab News media, and change "fossil fuels industry" to say Islamic extremists?

The difference is that science is not political, there are lobbyists and ideologues who like to portray it as being political, but its not.

This is really a simple question. Do you think that Anthropogenic Global Warming deniers should actually publish their arguments in peer reviewed journals like any ethical scientist would, or not?

[nebula]

The difference is that science is not political,

Actually, science is mixed up in a lot more politics and idealogues than people like to admit.

Don't get me wrong - I work in the science field. I do't have a "science angst." But being in the field has enabled me to see that it isn't as "pure" and "untouchable" as most defendants wish to admit to.

Note, I am not arguing for nor against global warming either.

Conventional science should have its theories questioned and challenged. For sometimes the conventional belief does turn out to be wrong. At other times, it provokes further study to better define the issue and actually make improvements.

So even incorrect challenges, if they are, end up improving science rather than harming it.

Something to think about.

[nebula]

This article expresses what actually does happen in the politics of science, which no one wants to believe exists:

If a polar-bear expert says polar bears appear to be thriving, thus disproving a popular climate theory, the expert and his numbers are dismissed as being outside the consensus. If studies show solar fluctuations rather than carbon emissions may be causing climate change, these are damned as relics of the old scientific method. If ice caps are not all melting, with some even getting larger, the evidence is ridiculed and condemned. We have a consensus, and this contradictory science is just noise from the skeptical fringe.

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

This is really a simple question. Do you think that Anthropogenic Global Warming deniers should actually publish their arguments in peer reviewed journals like any ethical scientist would, or not?

Yes.

Because a Scientist doesn't buy the argument that Global Warming is being caused by the actions of mankind, he is no longer ethical?

How so?

Peace,

Dave

[nebula]

If you have the time forrest, here is a report to read:

Global Warming Revisited

You have to scroll down to get to that section, though. It comes from the American Scientific Affiliation.

[forrestkc]

Grace to you,

This is really a simple question. Do you think that Anthropogenic Global Warming deniers should actually publish their arguments in peer reviewed journals like any ethical scientist would, or not?

Yes.

Because a Scientist doesn't buy the argument that Global Warming is being caused by the actions of mankind, he is no longer ethical?

How so?

Peace,

Dave

That is not the point. If a scientist does not buy the argument that Global Warming is being caused by the actions of man, then he should publish his findings in scientific journals for peer review. That is the nature of modern science.

However, if he refuses to do so, and instead goes the route of pushing propoganda, then he is being unethical.

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

Why publish them in a Peer Reviewed Journal when they will run you out on a rail and disqualify your credentials?

Peace,

Dave

[forrestkc]

This article expresses what actually does happen in the politics of science, which no one wants to believe exists:

If a polar-bear expert says polar bears appear to be thriving, thus disproving a popular climate theory, the expert and his numbers are dismissed as being outside the consensus. If studies show solar fluctuations rather than carbon emissions may be causing climate change, these are damned as relics of the old scientific method. If ice caps are not all melting, with some even getting larger, the evidence is ridiculed and condemned. We have a consensus, and this contradictory science is just noise from the skeptical fringe.

You are only proving my point. If a scientist has evidence and research showing that polar bear populations are thriving, then why not publish that in a peer reviewed journal like the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Nature, or Science?

Instead of doing so, they write editorials for propaganda organizations like SEPP, that are funded by the Fossil Fuels and Chemical Industries. That is not ethical. If a scientist wishing to challenge the consensus has conducted research of any merit, then they publish it in a scientific journal.

SEPP was founded by a scientist named Fred Singer. He is an atmospheric physicist. His last peer reviewed publication on Global Warming was in 1997. His organization, SEPP, has received multiple grants from Exxon Mobile. Prior to that, he had financial ties to Phillip Morris, and argued, among other things, that there was no evidence that tobacco smoke was harmful.

Thus we are talking about someone who has had a history of conflicts of interest, and whose ethics have been questioned on numerous occasions.

This is a pattern among the handful of scientists that oppose Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory. Virtually all of them have financial ties to the Oil and Gas Industries and they never actually submit any research to scientific journals.

The fact that you guys do not see this for what it is astounds me.

[forrestkc]

Grace to you,

Why publish them in a Peer Reviewed Journal when they will run you out on a rail and disqualify your credentials?

Peace,

Dave

Challenging the concensus is the hallmark of modern science. If your research has merits, no one will rail against you.

[forrestkc]

If you have the time forrest, here is a report to read:

Global Warming Revisited

You have to scroll down to get to that section, though. It comes from the American Scientific Affiliation.

It is a six year old article though. The Science underlining Anthropogenic Global Warming over the last 6 years has greatly matured as a result of multiple studies each backed by multiple lines of evidence.

Here is a challenge for you, find even one recent article in a peer reviewed journal that challenges the basic science behind Anthropogenic Global Warming. If there is such doubt on the theory in the scientific community, certainly such an article would be easy to find.