Confidential E-Mails Uncovered: AGW May Of Been Faked / Exagerated

[Sqrl]

Kasz216 said:

mrstickball said:

Soriku said:
Oh OK. I still think global warming is exaggerated at best though.

And that is the point of this thread - that the largest research group that proposes AGW exaggerated claims.

This doesn't change that we need to be better stewards of the environment. However, it does mean that the extremists are wrong.

That's the real problem... and it's one all scientists should learn.

If you spend a lot of time around scientists...  you learn that most of them actually don't care about science... or rather they do.  They just don't care about doing it the right way.

They only care about their field, and even more specifically, their specialty and their own outlook.

Once most scientists get something in their head, no amount of anything can get them to think otherwise.  Rather then be flexiable because of their training and being taught science, the opposite almost always seems to be true.  Scientists tend to be even more rigid and unflexable because they feel they're smarter then everyone else on the issue.

 

It's why they always try to hammer in research methods class "You try and prove what you don't believe." when it comes to the scientific method.

It's understandable.  People don't becoem scientists because they're nuetral towards science.   You pick a field of science because you have a STRONG feeling for that science.  So obviously you have preconceived notions and biases that are going to cause you trouble.

For example people choosing climatology right now likely are doing so because they feel strongly about global warming.

Then throw in things like getting research grants... and if you concede your research has been wrong and start over... that really hurts your road towards tenure... and all the other economic factors... and you become even more rigid.

 

It's why it's said that there isn't really scientific evolution but scientific revolution.  Rarely do scientists of one theory say "We were wrong" and jump to a new theory.

Instead, usually it takes a few unheralded young scientists saying "this is wrong."  Eventually the older guys die out or get marginalized and the new view point wins the "revolution."

Even people like Einstein stuck to theories of their own that were wrong, even when evidence to the contrary seemed much stronger and based by math.  After they get a few years in their career... most scientists opinions aren't going to change much in their own field.

It reminds me of hisotrians.  They have a much wider knowledge of history, yet still generally hold the same opinions on laymen mostly because they were "history fanboys" before they knew as much.  Some of those "great" leaders who had a bunch of skeletons and did a lot of unethical things to get stuff done tend to get their bad acts rationalized away,

This post reminds me that I wanted to do a stories in science thread a while back...the idea being each poster adds an interesting story from the history of science that they know about.  Some of the past revolutions are beyond fascinating from both a human and scientific perspective but they can also be extremely instructive on how and why some modern scientist can be completely well-meaning but also completely wrong (this point is true generally of science, not just of all or part of climate science).