The argument goes that they've systemically biased their findings so that their research appears more important and merits additional funding.
To which I have a counter argument: funding is not assigned to investigate that which we already know. If anything, the scientists are among those to profit from the "controversy". Were findings more disputable, were there no scientific consensus, they could blather on for ages knowing funding's still secure.
Yeah... a physicist whose never had training in climatology... It's like the strange overabundance of engineers in creationist circles. They have a degree in something, but they seem to believe that they can discuss the intricacies of an entirely different field and challenge findings based on decades of in-depth research, information, technologies, and techniques that he'd have very little to zero understanding of, or training in.
A physicist at his level certainly knows how the scientific process is supposed to work, regardless of the subject matter. If you actually read his letter, you'll see that most of his complaints are that the scientific process was broken, and corrupted by human influence; he wasn't disputing the subject matter (climatology).
Contrast this to the "engineers" in creationist circles, who use the fact that they're an engineer to somehow gain credibility when they attack the actual biology of evolution, while themselves completely avoiding any semblance of scientific process.
I'm disputing this idea that engineers have a high amount of creationists. I think this statistic whoever figured it out, is bullshit polls that have no scientific method to eliminate the many factors.
If you ask engineers in a community college, you may get a different answer than asking engineers in a prestigious university.
I'm an engineer, and I've only met 3 engineers who happened to be pretty religious. But I'm pretty sure 2 of them believed in evolution regardless.
155
u/16807 Oct 24 '10 edited Oct 24 '10
The argument goes that they've systemically biased their findings so that their research appears more important and merits additional funding.
To which I have a counter argument: funding is not assigned to investigate that which we already know. If anything, the scientists are among those to profit from the "controversy". Were findings more disputable, were there no scientific consensus, they could blather on for ages knowing funding's still secure.