Science has been under attack lately, presumably because people don't like where it leads. A timely article.

Some of the responses demonstrate what it's up against.

It seems to me that the votaries of the global warming DELUGE, like Clive Hamilton and Geoff Davies, have disrobed themselves of their scientific mantles and donned upon their heads the hoods of the Spanish Inquisition. Anyone who is not a CONFORMIST to the conventional wisdom of global warming is a “denialist” and “contrarian” and deserves like the heretics the burning heat of the stake. Only conformists are destined to enter the garden of Eden of the Rousseuan state of nature that the supporters of climate change espouse.

Dr. Davies, parroting Clive Hamilton, puts a lot of emphasis on the peer review process. Two weeks ago 31,000 American scientists signed a petition contesting and repudiating the findings of their other scientists confreres who argue the perils of AGE. Did they do this without also being under the peer review process of their scientific colleagues?

http://daringoutlook.blogspot.com

All I cn say is that I have read Geoff's book Economia: New Economic Systems To Empower People and Support the Living World.

It is easily one of the best books written on the relation between science, economics, and culture.

Geoff has done his homework.

One endorsement puts it thus:

"Imagine a much more equal and inclusive society than we have now. It has old-fashioned family values, solid local communities, and full employment in an efficient and sustainable market economy with a debt-free money supply and no executive plunder.
Impossible? Perhaps.
But Geoff Davies project is distinguished by such common sense, HARD SCIENCE, practicality, surprise, fine writing and expert contempt for orthodox economics, that its a joy to read for visionaries and sceptics alike".

By comparison the stuff that the IPA promotes via its various propaganda front groups is tacky third rate group-think---its so called sceptics who are really the most blinkered and dim-witted true believers.

STEVEN L MEYER :)

you said:

<<"However science has built in quality control mechanisms that make it a more reliable source of information than anything else we have.">>

From a human perspective, leaving aside the issue of 'inspiration'.. I hope one day, you look more closely at those same 'mechanisms' on which our text of scripture is based.

LISTEN TO SCIENTISTS? umm.. which ones? Those who are desperate for funding, and who will seek to portray their 'work' in as positive a light as possible, to attract new funding?

Or those who have built a reputation on a particular experimental outcome, and who's very life depends on the continuation of such a direction.... and who (surprise surprise) would be very defensive of that position even in spite of evidence to the contrary?

Aaah yes.. the cool fresh air of 'scientific objectivity' :)

I am not surprised that antagonistic responders can't proffer a better solution on how to disseminate science to the general public.

Most posters here have shown they are incapable of engaging in constructive debate.

They just argue for the sake of argument, regardless of what is generally accepted by people with more expertise in a particular field than them.

No wonder it's getting hard to recruit people into the sciences - and no wonder it is difficult for scientists to share their findings in the public domain.

We can see in this OLO thread the resultant witch-burning - scientists are damned if they do and they are damned if they don't.

Ho Hum, the book is very good. However, not many here would read it - I think you would understand why.
Can you think of a better way to share the science? I may be wrong, but I am interpreting people not responding to this simple question as them thinking there is no better way than the IPCC process.

I'm hearing the spin from my Windows
I'm seeing the pain pound the sea
My feet have come loose from their scientific moorings
I'm feeling quite wonderfully free
And I think I will travel to Riad
Using Globemasters for flight
There's only oil I know of in Riad
And it's something worth engaging in fight
It's only a whimsical notion
To fly down to Riad tonight
I probably won't fly down to Riad
But then again We just might

There's wings to the thought behind Children
The Pauli Exclusion's at play
And dancing to rhythms of Abrams
Puts the laughter Children at bay
And I think I will travel to Riad
Using Globemasters for flight
There's only oil I know of in Riad
And it's something worth engaging in fight
It's only a whimsical notion
To fly down to Riad tonight
I probably won't fly down to Riad
But then again We just might

(Spoken:)

'This is the first call for Flight 77 to Riad Saudi Arabia
Now boarding at Gate 17, this is the first call'

I feel such a sense of well-being
The problems have come to be solved
And what I thought was proper for mankind
I see now is proper for War
And I think I will travel to Riad
Using Globemasters for flight
There's only oil I know of in Riad
And it's something worth engaging in fight
It's only a whimsical notion
To fly down to Riad tonight
I probably won't fly down to Riad
But then again We just might

And I think I will travel to Riad
Using Globemasters for flight
There's only oil I know of in Riad
And it's something worth engaging in fight
It's only a whimsical notion
To fly down to Rio tonight
I probably won't fly down to Rio
But then again We just might

Rio? Why Rio?
Not Rio dummy
Riad, Riad Saudi Arabia