You want to ascribe the exact same signs and symptoms of a failed academic- IE, someone who isn't doing a good job?
Do you want a playing field where everyone is 'special' and everyone gets 'equal time' and no matter how bad their work is, gets published in the top journals, promoted to tenure posts no matter how bad or uninformed their work ?
Essentially what you are doing is saying that the academic process, which (hmmm, interestingly) has worked all these many decades to advance science, research and education is just in this 'special' case the sign of some non-scientifically motivated special conspiracy to 'put down' your little tin heroes?
Yeah, sorry- thats bullshit. Essentially any second-rater could then say he was being marginalized for political reasons.
You think "naive and irresponsible" is harsh? Man, I hear language a thousand times worse than that thrown at conferences and on mailing lists, both to and from 'big names' and field leaders. It does not 'end careers' or etc. I've seen graduate students' work called 'idiotic crap' by top minds in the fields at thesis defenses- and those students go on to tenure track positions at top schools. Its all in how you defend yourself and your work, or explain your work to your critics. at the end of the day, either there is something there and your critics have to accept it regardless of how much they may hate it (IE, it may burn a line of inquiry they have been pushing), or there is nothing there. At which point, you better know how to gracefully concede the argument or you won't last long.
"naive and irresponsible" is a gentle tap compared to what I've seen.
Yeti
Current Events » in reply to It's hard to believe you work at a university.
So essentially
The whole thread (128 posts)
- just the link in text form
- Such high-pitched emotions
- Hansen's latest paper
- re: just the link in text form
- "SourceWatch.org"? Sounds very reputable.
- It's "A Convienient Lie"
- re: It's not just the blogs
- As TB so helpfully pointed out...
- re: Why shouldn’t I believe these scientist?
- re: Why shouldn't I believe these scientist?
- re: Still, there are quite a number of "wait a minute" things out there in the science, work done by real and responsible scientists, and these need to be discussed on a case-by-case basis, not by si…
- I have never claimed that science was a democracy...
- Okay, let's skip to the politics
- It is a political issue
- re: Which facts
- A good place to start
- re: Already seen it
- re: Already seen it
- "What proof is there that CO2 is causing the earth to warm?"
- re: That's not true
- LOL I encourage everyone to look at the link- It really makes my point
- Ummm, ooookaayy... just one thing before I reply
- re: That's not true
- Break it down.
- re: Break it down.
- never mind (n/t)
- re: Break it down.
- We're talking parts per million
- "THe effects on temperature are negligible at best. "- That is nonsense, the science says otherwise...
- No we are not talking parts per million. And anyway, how would you know SteveS' objection till he has voiced it.
- CO2 levels are around 380 ppm (parts per MILLION)
- More used to seeing it as a percent. (n/t)
- CO2 levels are around 380 ppm (parts per MILLION)
- re: Break it down.
- "What proof is there that CO2 is causing the earth to warm?"
- A good place to start
- I have never claimed that science was a democracy...
- re: Still, there are quite a number of "wait a minute" things out there in the science, work done by real and responsible scientists, and these need to be discussed on a case-by-case basis, not by si…
- re: Why shouldn't I believe these scientist?
- Most of those organizations don't put the question to a vote by their members.
- re: Why shouldn’t I believe these scientist?
- That won't work.
- re: It's not just the blogs
- As TB so helpfully pointed out...
- re: It's "A Convienient Lie"
- Global warming.
- "for some reason believe that the issue of Global Warming is a political one"
- re: It's not just the blogs
