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?
Not at all. The same process has screwed up a lot of areas of academic study. I used to work at a university myself. Thank God I wasn't actually inside the system, and that was in a technical area, not one of the famed "fuzzy subjects," but I heard a lot from people who weren't that lucky. Academia is, particularly in some fields, a deeply inbred society where rational analysis sometimes takes second place, and which side of the bed someone got up on in the morning can have as much to do with how your work is received as anything else. Especially in categories where there's no objective standards in the first place.
Like politics, science sometimes moves forward in spite of the establishment, not because of it. It's no coincidence that a lot of the real progress in our society comes from people who worked "outside the system."
If you are trying to tell me that publishing, influence, tenure and things like that are always matters of objective standards, you're farther back in the mushroom closet than I thought you were.
I notice nobody's touching my comparison of United Nations influence with energy company influence with a ten-foot pole. Apparently, only one of these situations creates instant suspicion.
Current Events » in reply to So essentially
re: 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
