We all know the typical stereotype of a scientist.
People who tend to get so wrapped up in their work they get absent minded about "normal' things like food or hygiene. Socially awkward and shy people unless they are talking about their work when they could talk the leg off a wooden donkey no problems. People who seem to get great joy from the satisfaction of solving a problem or making a discovery. Money means very little to them unless they need a new widget or a trip to a volcano or the depths of the ocean. People whos idea of a relaxing break or holiday is curling up in bed with the latest textbook or scientific journal. This is what scientists are like. These are the sort of people attracted to scientific endeavors.

Why then are we allowing the elites and vested interests to paint them all as rich fat cats corrupting their work and falsifying data so as to bring about some socialist world government conspiracy and enrich themselves? I dont see any scientists driving round in mercedes or flying round in private jets or living in seaside mansions. Why are people falling for such propaganda and blatent misrepresentation of scientists? How can these "deniers" state this nonsense with a straight face? What evidence can you deniers give us that shows scientists have or will benefit personally from their claims about climate change? So far all I have seen is speculation and invective but nothing to actually back up what they say about greedy perfidious scientists.

If the deniers cant come up with some concrete evidence of what they say about scientists having greedy, ulterior motives for their stance on climate change then their arguments have to be disregarded and ignored. Indeed I put forward that they should be ridiculed and scorned for coming out with such utter garbage.

mikk: Thank you... I think.

Being a scientist, three majors, molecular biology (DNA etc), histolgy (microscopic) and Human Neuro-anatomy.

I do know scientists that drive round in mercedes or fly round in private jets or live in seaside mansions though. And some of them obtained their riches in ways that I would not consider.

I too held that belief about the nerdy behaviour of scientists until I met a few, the nerdy ones stand out, but the significant majority are totally normal people. Mums and dads, sons and daughters, we do totally normal things, live totally normal lives.

We are basically curious people who have a more analytical way of looking at things. An observation of event fascinates us to the point we need to understand, it does sometime drive us into a world that excludes what you may determine as normal behaviour, but no more than a "Car freak", "the punter" or a golfer.

Yes some of us get hooked on greed, just another example of how much we are like the rest of you, but it is more often because we are made an offer we couldn't refuse then not. Saying this, more refuse than take the offers usually.

Having said that:

Most renegade scientists are on the payroll of someone, usually the highest bidder. This is usually the private sector, agriculturist lobby groups, mining lobby groups or business.

Governments usually rely on the distribution of research grants through public facilities to do their coercion.

Having said all this, the majority of scientists are honest, intelligent, responsible people.

Therefore, stop, look, read and think. Then come up with a reasonable interpretation of what we say, look for what the majority believe, way up the pros and cons (lower living standards vs extinction for example)'

A lot of us do have our say, TV, radio, newspapers, here etc. We also read and listen, if it was as much bs as everyone makes out we would say so.

But don't shoot the messenger.

WTF?

For many years tobacco companies could honestly say that there was no proof that smoking caused health problems.
They were essential correct, although dishonest, because it is almost impossible to prove anything in the world of science.
Stating that there is a very high correlation between smoking and severe health problems and saying that there is proof are two different things altogether.
Tobacco companies knew that most of the general public didn’t know the difference and played on it.
Scientific research is rigorous and time consuming. Conclusions reached often use the language of probability – this leave the door open for new ideas and data collection.
In 2010 there are an every increasing number of outlets for people to voice their opinion – OLO being just one.
Many contributors either do not understand the nuances of scientific language or ,like the tobacco companies, use it to mislead others.

Mikk your first paragraph is, as your say, stereotypical.

Regarding “Why then are we allowing the elites and vested interests”

That is another “stereotype”

Perhaps you could draw a similar word-picture to describe an “elite” or “vested interests”

Perhaps, wears a pinstripe suit, silk tie, wing-tip shoes, an office in Collins street, maybe a small van-dyke style beard to cover the inevitable weak-chin the image held together by the delicate fragrance of an exclusive and expensive aftershave or cologne.

“What evidence can you deniers give us that shows scientists have or will benefit personally from their claims about climate change?”

Well I know the shonky rat who runs the IPCC is making buckets out of his private deals

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

and he sequesters scientists for their input to climate change, “birds or a feather flock together“

the Telegraph article runs with the leader “Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash.”

Scientists who lay down with dogs, get fleas.

The IPCC being a bunch of Dogs

And then we get onto my own view, “Climate Change” is an opportunity for the collectivists to impose their obscene politics onto the superior libertarian/capitalist system, having infiltrated the environmental movement to make up “global warming” as a “revolutionary situation”

Per Lenin “A revolution is impossible without a revolutionary situation”

As a denier, I do not have concrete evidence that “greed” is a motive, any more than I can prove “ego”.

But that does not prevent me from asking:

J curves and Hockey stick graphs, claimed to predict the impact of human practice on global temperatures have been revealed as Lies

So why did a scientist present them as “fact” and why did his “peers” support him?

Why is the head of IPCC making secret contracts from his public office?

Why are you defending the frauds and fraudulent efforts of people motivated by personal Ego, Avarice and political power?

Why do you not comprehend, the cautious “skeptics” of the world might just know more than you and are thus less gullible than you?

If true science was being reported and used to tax the Australian people only a few whingers would moan. Instead we have a pseudo religion where no one is allowed to disagree with the High Priests despite proven to be corrupt and self serving. Mikk really has no idea that true science is something that can be observed and proven. Man made climate change along with evolution is nothing short of myth or fairy tales for adults.

Runner < 'Man made climate change along with evolution is nothing short of myth or fairy tales for adults.'

Really Runner? Far better that we believe the biggest fairy tail book of them all.....The Bible?

If not for scientists, we would have far more death and disease at an earlier age than ever before.
We should be thankful for their amazing contributions to the health of humans, if nothing else.

suzionline

'if not for scientists, we would have far more death and disease at an earlier age than ever before.
We should be thankful for their amazing contributions to the health of humans, if nothing else.'

There is nothing in my post that would contradict what you have said. I have met many wonderful scientist whose goal is to help mankind rather than prove a fantasy.

you also write

'Really Runner? Far better that we believe the biggest fairy tail book of them all.....The Bible? '

you choose by faith to believe you come from an ape and I choose by faith to believe that I have a Creator. I know which faith based belief is more logical. And don't tell me that 'the science is settled'.

Dear mikk,

I can understand where you'e coming from.
Critics of scientists are often influenced
by other agendas then finding the "truth.'

However, I think historically -
discoveries that challenged important existing
assumptions or values have provoked intense controversy
or even resistance. In fact it's quite common for
a major new theory or discovery to cause an intellectual
scandal in the scientific community and in society beyond.

Darwin was reviled for his theory of evolution. Freud
was shouted down by his outraged colleagues. Galileo's
colleagues refused to look through his telescope
to see the moons of Jupiter. Giordano Bruno was burned
at the stake for proclaiming that the earth revolved
around the sun. Pasteur's germ theory was ignored by
surgeons of his time, who could have saved countless
lives simply by washing their hands and instruments
before operating on their patients - and the list goes on.

At the same time we shouldn't put scientists on a
pedestal either. Like any one else they
may be greedy, or as
ambitious as anyone else. There is some outright
fraud in science - deliberate bias, plagiarism,
suppression of inconvenient facts, bogus claims,
and even forgery of research results. There's also
competition. Professional recognition is very
important to a scientist. The university or college
scientist - particularly in the US must "publish or
perish."

However, where would we be without them?
The thought of the objective,
emotionally disinterested
scientist is a bit naive.
Like the rest of us they have their own private
values and prejudices, and they may be passionately
committed to particular viewpoints or theories -
but the world will always need new knowledge and
its eventual application to technology.

The best is yet to come.

Runner,
Fair suck of the celestial harp, old brimstone snorting seraphim (levitating person) first order ...those who see most clearly!

Evolution does NOT say we come from Apes! We come from a common ancestor a million years of difference.
Neither is it about the survival of the fittest! It says survival of the most adapted. Again about a millennium or five difference.
Both these myths/ miss quotations come from an Astronomer competitor of Darwin at the time(1800's).( a wanna be theologian and zealot) some of his views were weird for even then.

Next my old ecclesiastical enveloped Cherubim (chubby winged baby)Second order...fullness of knowledge). Your bible is well at best artificially selective i.e. there are some 20 other epistles books and gospels that were left out because they conflicted the religious (Catholic) teachings of the time.

The old testament is also taken out of context. Explain away the hundreds of contradictions that abound when compared to modern religion. It or rather they had an entirely different purpose than their use today. Ask a Jewish theologian.

As for the science being settled.....in the context that there will always be more to know exactly, but science is far more rationally able to explain existence/life than some male commanding once every day for six days then taking a (sickie?) day of (from the stress hard work? all that commanding).

In short my ethereally minded Angel(winged person?) - ninth order ...individual affairs of mankind, religion including Christianity, emotionally satisfying to some, but logical

You're right again mikk.

I've noticed that, undoubtedly as part of the spin campaign against action to ameliorate AGW, there's recently been a lot of ill-informed and quite vicious disinformation being spread against scientists.

As I've said before at OLO, I've worked with many scientists and used to be one myself. I don't know any of my former colleagues who lives the kind of materially profligate lifestyle that is normally associated with more than an average income. To suggest that scientists in general are in it for the money is really a poor joke.

Like any profession, there's a few whose behaviour is ethically wanting, but I really think that this line of attack by the denialist contingent is one of their weakest.

Of course, there's a sizeable proportion of AGW denialists who, through a combination of ignorance and selfishness, will leap on anything attacking the messengers like hyenas on carcass. Unfortunately, that's because AGW is now far more of an issue politically and economically than it is in scientific terms.

Examinator - I think we all know that runner doesn't understand evolution, or anything much else outside of his fundamentalist Christian perspective.

He does, however, perform the useful function of providing a few chuckles in otherwise serious discussions :)

Thanks CJ and Foxy as usual you put it far better than I could. Foxy your post brought to mind a saying I heard somewhere.

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident."

I hope the current furor is as violent as it gets and we get to stage three soon.

Dear mikk,

Thanks for the quote. It's one of my
favourites. (German philosopher -
Arthur Schopenhauer).

I also like this old one:

"I don't feel obligated to believe that
the same God who has endowed us with
sense, reason and intellect has intended
us to forego their use."

Fingers-crossed that the third-stage will
come sooner rather than later.
Although as my husband keeps pointing out -
you can't beat a pickled egg!

Mikk,

Having come from a science background, I am heartwarmed by your trust. Unfortunately just as many are rich, corrupt and ego centric as in any other background. (maybe not politicians or unions)

Thanks for the link to that article Col. The article itself was a load of spurious rubbish we have heard and debunked numerous times but one comment caught my eye and cuts to the heart of why I wrote this article.

"Climate change skeptics remind me of conspiracy theorists who think the americans blew up the world trade centre.
Just a very low opinion of their fellow man, and their motivations. "

This is exactly what I was trying to get at. What is it with the deniers that they seriously believe that a group of people (scientists) that have given so much to the world in technology, healthcare, understanding, wealth and so much more would suddenly turn on the community and seek to deceive them in such a dangerous and far reaching manner. It just doesnt make sense. Science has hardly ever involved itself in politics and you would think they would have tried to gain control in a normal fashion at least once before they went to such extremes as fraud and deception. Why do deniers have such a low opinion if one group but not apply it elsewhere. Why are the fat cats not seen by them in the same light despite so much more overwhelming evidence of fraud, greed and dishonesty? Can you deniers not see how it is to support your arguments when they are just not logical nor consistent.

mikk,

I don't have any problem with what you've written. I agree that most scientists do their job fairly diligently and that they can get stereotyped or politicised, which is unfortunate.

However, to be fair, many skeptics have not criticised the scientists. Their main gripe is with the *interpretations* that have been put on the scientists' work. In particular, the skeptics are really aiming their criticism at the interface between politics and science. I think they have a point which should not be too easily dismissed. Their essential argument is that it is utter folly to distort/disjoint our economy in order to satisfy the preconceived idea of AGW, if the human anthropological contribution is of much smaller magnitude than natural meteorological effects.

Now, if science could actually do the experiments that discriminated between man-made and natural effects, we would actually be getting somewhere in the debate. To my knowledge, this either hasn't been done or is at an immature stage.

Personally, I do not have a strong position on the climate change/AGW debate, but all I will say is that the power of nature is *massive* as the recent earthquake in Haiti attests. I therefore think natural and large-scale atmospheric events and processes must be taken into account when committing the country and economy to a particular, radical course of action. An appreciation of this power of nature may mean that whatever changes we make to fossil fuel burning are done in a smooth way that at least do not kick an own goal in terms of crimping our economy. That's the way I see the skeptics' argument and I think it is the correct way to view it.

RobP
It's more a case of 'galloping myopia' than much else.
I can't see it so it isn't happening, or I might lose something now.
As you put it own goal..destroying the economy. Others imply ...so business as usual.When coupled with the magic pudding scenario, and a terminal economics 'system'..."good luck, don't die" seems appropriate.

There is no doubt that the economy is a factor, but not the only or even the most important one.

Simply put, one class 5 cyclone, one drier decade than the last, one dead GBR (tourists), One metre of angry sea water et al can spoil the economy *permanently*. It won't do much for the "precious" Aussie life style either. Hunger lack of water tends to focus the mind somewhat. (what the hell I could stand to lose a kilo or 8)

Ultimately the decision boils down to the science and choosing an option that will do the least *long term* and doing nothing and to hell with the consequences.

Any guess which way I *currently* lean?
NB notwithstanding new scientific evidence that weighs in favour of the opposite.

examinator,

Your post shows that you didn't understand a thing I said.

>>Ultimately the decision boils down to the science and choosing an option that will do the least *long term* and doing nothing and to hell with the consequences.<<

You're right, taking the best decision does boil down to the science - and it also depends on distinguishing the difference between man-made and natural events as I said. Once that comes to light, the best decision may well be to make a move, but not as fast as you would like.

You're taking the road of the bully-boy/scare tactic. I suggest you try and understand what I was trying to say. (I was actually taking the middle path.) All you've shown in that post is that you're as one-sided as the people you're against. But that happens in religious wars.

Hmmmm. I thought Mikk was joking with this thread. That scientists commit fraud is unexceptionable. Try googling "Scientific fraud". Wikipedia has an interesting article on it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct.

I can think of a couple of instances in recent times off the top of my head. There was the William McBride case in Australia, which is discussed in this article which also discusses other cases of Australian scientific fraud http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/89ta.html.

So, scientists are no different from any other profession - there are bad apples, and they are often very eminent people in their field.

Then in climate science, the area he appears to be specifically aiming at, we have the Climategate emails which clearly show a number of scientists involved in fraud concerning their work. These have only just recently surfaced, but in some respects they already confirm what we knew about some of the participants.

I don't know of any reputable critic of the IPCC who claims that all scientists are involved in a plot. What has been evident for a long time is that the number of scientists who are directly involved in the science of global warming, as distinct from those who are involved in fields that might be impacted by global warming, is quite small, and is dominated by climate modellers. It is the work of those scientists which is often criticised, and which is impacted by the corruption evident in the Climategate emails.

If Mikk is looking for reasons why scientists may be corrupted, then the wiki article gives a number of non-monetary reasons. Public choice theory also provides some explanations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice_theory

I see a lot of the nonsense that passes for global warming debate as being a systemic failure involving scientists, politicians, journalists and teachers.

Sorry Graham after looking at your links I think scientific fraud IS exceptional. In all of scientific endeavor there has only been a very small number of frauds AND they have all been discovered fairly easily and stopped. What I would say IS exceptional is getting away with scientific fraud. All of the famous frauds have been exposed by the same peer review/reproducibility doctrine all science is subject to.

I could show many many more instances of fraud and dishonesty in the business world. Does that mean business is illegitimate? Public choice theory is just another economic con trick designed to give preordained answers that while they fit the proponents world view, they show no resemblance to reality as we know it and experience it every day. Just like all the rest of right wing capitalist economic theories.

Mikk, nothing anyone does, in any other sphere, justifies what the global warming shonks have done.

A business may rip of a few people. What this lot were doing is ripping off half the people or the globe, just to satisfy their egos.

Slander them! No one could do that. There is nothing left, that you could call them, that would be bad enough to do that.

Scientific fraud is rather self-limiting.

Why do it? to get funding.

Why is it limited? Everyone else in the field will either depend on your result and later find it wanting, or actively take the position that you are wrong. A scientist demonstrated to be fraudulent will have torched their career, will not get grants approved, will not get any contracts renewed.

Contrast this with creationist pseudo-scientists who keep getting money from religious suckers just to keep generating saleable magazine articles for religious rags and you start to see who is really honest.

Rusty