It is always amusing to hear warmists --who of course have been elected to represent science -- talk as if nothing improper ever happens in the halls of science.

Well, here’s a little excerpt from theoretical physicist, Lee Smolin [The Trouble With Physics] which gives a different picture.

“Science requires a delicate balance between conformity and variety….If science is to move forward, the scientific community must support a variety of approaches to any one problem. There is ample evidence that these basic principles are no longer being followed in the case of fundamental physics. While few would disagree with the rhetoric of diverse views, it is being practiced less and less. Some young string theorists have told me that they feel constrained to work on string theory whether or not they believe in it, because it is perceived as the ticket to a professorship at university. And they are right: In the United States, theorists who pursue approaches to fundamental physics other than string theory have almost no career opportunities . In the last fifteen years, there have a total of three assistant professors appointed to American research universities who work on approaches to quantum gravity other than string theory, and these appointments were all to a single research group. Even as string theory struggles on the scientific side, it has triumphed within the academy…I am extremely concerned about a trend in which only one direction of research is well supported while other promising approaches are starved”

Now ask yourself, if this can happen in physics, might it not also happen elsewhere?

Leo Lane,

It is a classic response from conspiracy theorists that when an independent review doesn't support their preferred outcome that they have to add the reviewers into the conspiracy mix.

Anyway try this link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/08/muir-russell-climategate-climate-science

It seems to me scientists are a conservative bunch. They are cautious and assign a 95% confidence rating, even when the evidence is screaming at them that it is virtually certain. Politicians and shock jocks have learnt that many simple members of the public like certainty so it is best to say they are 100% sure, even if they are only 5% "sure". Even you Leo, presumably not a climate scientist and without any reference or links to any science article from a national scientific institution have no problem being 100% definitive as in "There is no measureable effect on climate from human emissions". Unfortunately saying it does not make it so.

SPQR - it is of course possible that the whole scientific community is wrong and has been corrupted - its just extremely unlikely when there is so much evidence and the evidence is accumulating each day.

Rich2, this may be of interest:

http://theconversation.edu.au/whos-your-expert-the-difference-between-peer-review-and-rhetoric-1550

sarnian "Repeat the misinformation often enough and people might believe in this “Conspiracy theory” about global warming, with thousands of scientists all over the world organizing together to hoodwink everyone else."

It's always interesting to see people attribute to others what they themselves do. I don't believe in conspiracies, but do think there is some "groupthink" going on, as it has before and as I alluded to in previous posts. No conspiracy existed for example, on stomach ulcer causes, just 99.9% of scientists all going along with the accepted "consensus", as today with AGW.

That doesn't make it correct, just fashionable.

Similarly you probably believe there is a conspiracy of skeptics, someone paying all of us, 50% of Australians, organized to "disbelieve", led by the notorious shock-jocks. Good luck with that, I'm sure it helps bolster the cause.

Why am I skeptical, when you all quote "the laws of physics" at us? You all allude to how simple it is and how could anyone "disbelieve".

Well if it is so simple, why are the models constantly wrong, why did they not identify the plateauing occurring right now. It's not simple, that's the point, CS is in its infancy (regardless of the big egos)

Why so much skulldugery at CRU? Internal reviews cleared them, of course they did, money and prestige were involved .. does anyone believe it?

No they do not, the FOI case was admitted, that they plotted to avoid it, deny all you like, skepticism remains.

Are other areas of science involved in groupthink, no not that I know of and I think that comes from other areas not lending themselves to eco activism in disguise. This to me is where climate science has gone off the rails, it is polluted with "wishful thinking", rather than scrupulous scientific method.

"The world temperature average has gone up one degree in the last 150 years, surely a cause for celebration, that we live in such a stable climatic time.

What am I missing?"

(I saw that posted on a website to rebuke skepticism, it remains unanswered, by alarmists)

Now, let me get this right:

It is NOT OK to posit, that:
“the whole scientific community is wrong and has been corrupted”, or even, those in the scientific community who believe in AGW (the second ..ssshhh! don’t tell Bonmot & co …is a much small sub-set of the first)
But it IS OK to posit :
à la Naomi Oreskes, Merchants of Doubt, that all sceptical authorities are in the pay of big industry

And,
It IS OK to think that prior to industrialization inputs magically balanced outputs & climate was Eden-like and stable -- à la Stephen Schneider and his bathtub analogy.Despite evidence before our eyes that natural inputs fluctuate widely
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K21SfeE-ltY

And it IS OK to think that all climate change is anthropogenically induced despite the fact that “ total combined anthropogenic greenhouse gases comprise (12,217 / 370,484) or [only] 3.298% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor)”

Look, see here, we have photographic evidence:
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/they_take_us_for_fools/
Whoops! sorry, wrong picture.

No wonder many of the voters are ...skeptical.

Excellent link, Bonmot.

Unfortunately, I am enough of a pessimist to realise that such clear and rational reporting will not change the minds of the AGW deniers. They will continue to confuse opinion with fact.

" Facts are a certainty. They do not change from person to person or from one location to the next. They can be proven with evidence.

Opinions can vary from one person to the next without either of them being wrong. They express an attitude, a belief, a judgment or a conclusion.

When you are in a conversation or facing a decision, try to perpetually evaluate whether you are dealing in a world of fact and fiction, or just differing opinions.

Watch out for the trap of confusing fact with opinion. If the conversation is really about opinion, point this out.

Remember that most decisions are based on the opinion of the decision-maker, and this does not make the decision invalid."

http://www.ascentadvising.com/?p=102