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.