There is really only one possibility, you blokes have avoided reading climategate 2.0 emails.

I suppose there are always some so dumb that they don't want to see, & all societies have been cursed with some of these.

There are also fellow travelers, in it for the quid.

However it is doubtful that any could read this new crop of emails, & still make the posts on here.

If you still "believe" you have my sympathy, it must be tough when you have only one eye.

It is not necessary to reform science. Science is ingrained in every car we drive, every computer we use, every spoon full of breakfast cereal we eat (whole-grained or otherwise).It ain't going to lose it's influence anytime soon.

Where things tend to fail is in the presentation of some aspects of science, by some who are wont to pontificate as if they are spokespersons for science.

Here's AnthonyV [25 November 2011 11:00:13 AM]
<< A recent example of this is that a few weeks ago, a paper was published describing an experiment that appeared to show particles exceeding the speed of light. A complex piece of research but the authors couldn't figure out what was going on. The publicity was substantial. However, when another group repeated the experiment and didn't get the same result, the publicity was faint>>

What are we to gather from this comment? It is a little hard to read:
<<when another group repeated the experiment and didn't get the same result>>
As other than, the second set of experiments failed to confirm the result of the first.

But here in that most august of science journals NATURE we find:

<<Physicists have replicated the finding that the subatomic particles called neutrinos seem to travel faster than light. It is a remarkable confirmation of a stunning result>>
http://www.nature.com/news/neutrino-experiment-replicates-faster-than-light-finding-1.9393

And it's echoed in NEWSCIENTIST:

<<One of the most staggering results in physics – that neutrinos may go faster than light – has not gone away with two further weeks of observations. The researchers behind the jaw-dropping finding are now confident enough in the result that they are submitting it to a peer-reviewed journal.>>
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21188-new-results-show-neutrinos-still-faster-than-light.html

Now it's not about what the experiments will ultimate establish. It's whether some of those who purport to talk for science know what they are talking about!

Reform science Nah!
You do better to kick out the wannabe bishops and popes!

we cant blame them hassa..its made to sound so reasonable
and you gotta love how we became holowcost denierers,,
and religeous kooks..and the science illiteratie

just like the frauds statistics of smoking
fraud numbers is the name of the game
[so as with smoking]..where 15,000 ATTRIVUTABLE deaths attributed to smoking..is only attributed not factual[but heck who can tell anmy different]

see the 'numbers'..are made by guestimate[cause autopsies arnt nessisary!..if a cause of death is written dow.. by any docter[so vile docters that accidentially kill hide behind ''cause of death[smoking]'

so you canm kill a smokers
by adberse reation to perscribed drugs
1 in 100 hospital admissions are adverse drug reactions
1 in 10 result in death

even when refuse to treat..dirty smelly smokers
we still get acused of costing the health system 32 billion
yet our actual medical costs..is 800 million

[the 32 nbillion number is costs attributable][ie the 'social cost''..any smoking related[..or attributably relatable cost AND tax[benifit]..

its the sum total of all attributable smoking income/cost
[to wit spin][ya just gotta liove the clever spin..the raise to bring on a new [ineexed annually]..tax on those hated despised smokers

who lol died
by the act of smoking...?
the thought of smoking?

dead from smoking...that act of smoking?
you know that smoking that makes your toes freze off and go black

but if govt raves on and on about smoking deaths
[that no doudt include many asbestosis lung deaths
those numbers hide inconveniant truths..made lie by statistic

yes the peer science revieuws deliver yet again
here i fight the other huge lie
of species ecvolving into new genus
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12844&page=0

its far easy to sell the too clever by half lie
than to egsamin the facts yourself..thus we get lies

science that lies..distorts facts..twists the data
to make clever hockey sticks..has colluded fraud right there in emails

and the one eyed blind
dont see nuthin...lol

Science is both good & bad, just like everything else on this planet.
When I worked in a hospital I found that the cures were way outweighed by the creation of refuse. This will be a major problem not long from now. The same goes for green energy. The benefits are outweighed by the pollution to create it. Our Laws foster criminality etc etc.
Science is governed by the revenue it promises. How about a scientific study to stamp out stupidity. No funding for that I guess because if suddenly people became smart a lot of money wouldn't go where it's going presently.
Scientists are smart enough to develop something but not smart enough to foresee the negatives of their inventions. Frivolities create much more revenue than useful things. They also create more pollution.

The way this is done is by peer review.
A scientist who claims to have discovered something new publishes his/her experiment and results in a reputable journal.
Getting past the editorial board is the first checkpoint.
Once published then other scientists may repeat the experiment to see if they acheive the same outcome.
This works well; and has done for more than a century. But, as you say, scientists are human.
There is questionable research where one could draw a line from funding source to outcome. But, generally, it either doesn't get published in a reputable journal or it's quickly attacked by other scientists and found wanting......

Having said all that, it is true that we do see "scientists" who, while funded by tobacco companies argued that smoking did not cause cancer, and now, while funded by fossil fuel lobbies argue against global warming.
One solution could be that all research when published, must have all the funding sources disclosed.
Many reputable science journals already do this.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.auPosted by Anthonyve, Friday, 25 November 2011 11:00:13 AM

Money comes with string attached- the worst ones are the implicit strings (requirements- confirm what we believe or we won't pay you again). Peer-review whether journal derived or continuous is and never was an antidote to powerful interests, anyway peer review is different thread. Money may or may not be primary driver of scientists but it is the most powerful single driver in society. Admitting who funds you is no solution- the strings can't be overcome that easily. We need the best results.

Science is not technology. The first cars were built with little to no analysis. We can make really bad decisions based on poor science but they may not be disasterous enough for the bad science to be evident. How about asbestos some in the air may be dangerous but the alternative poorer fire insulation are disasterous for people in building such as 9-11 and the hundreds of fireman who die every year as building collapse quickly. Its a complex world so its easy to hide poor science.

People who are into religion, should keep it to themselves, who cares if they believe things that go against normal rational.
There is a batch of rerun emails getting around about climate science, just in time for the next climate meeting, coincidence. The place where these emails supposed come from have reported no irregularities in their system.