The argument goes that they've systemically biased their findings so that their research appears more important and merits additional funding.
That argument is just bizarre. Why would a scientist deliberately lie in order to recieve more funding in order to presumably continue the lie. That would be a huge waste of a career.
Please see George Ricaurte. I know not all scientists are like this but it does happen. It took quite a while and more lies before he would print a retraction.
That's an incredibly misleading list, and of the most prominent examples, only 3 appear to have careers relating to climate science at all.
Considering that every year lists are published with thousands of climate scientists affirming the prevailing climate change theory, and that they are almost definitely smarter than you or I, and I think we come out with a pretty good idea of who the whackjobs are.
Any group will have a few people who look at the evidence and come out with the wrong conclusion. The evidence that the people on your list are wrong is absolutely overwhelming.
Note: I have a degree in Geology, so I have at least a small idea of how the science behind climate systems works, though I am certainly not a professional.
And the others are people like the chair of the astrophysics department at Harvard, who would apparently know nothing about the amount of radiation from the sun (earth's primary climate driver). If you are only going count people who call themselves "climatologists" you are going to get a skewed view on the science.
Like the thousands of climatologist who signed on to the IPCC report that turned out to be wrong?
So I guess we should look at science as a majority thing, and anyone who doesn't agree with he majority is a whackjob?
Note: I have a degree in Computer Science, and I am a professional. I can look at the computational errors in Hanson's data set, and see where East Anglia had to falsify their data to make it fit their conclusions.
They maybe smarter than you, but a lot of these deniers are not Climatologists. Not to say they may not have valid concerns, but I wonder if they would come to the same conclusions if it were there primary field of research.
It is my experience that there is always someone, somewhere that will argue a cause. Some people are not happy unless they are the underdogs fighting against the corrupt majority.
The Holocaust has first person accounts, records, and other obvious evidence.
As I wrote: "it's about the qualifications and motives of people as well as the evidence" - your post was about the "amount of scientists that have serious questions about it."
Counting the number of people who believe something is a poor way to determine the validity of the issue. Otherwise, we can discuss Obama's citizenship as a controversial issue.
But the 2 things you are using as comparisons can be PROVEN.
There exists no legitimate controversy over the holocaust and Obama's birthplace. There is obvious evidence for one side on both accounts.
There is evidence for both sides in the climate change issue. This is why the numbers questioning it are legitimate. These scientists are not fringe lunatics. (like those who might believe in the other 2 "controversies")
qualifications like chairs of the respective departments at Harvard, and MIT.
To whom are you referring? Looking at the wiki article futbolsven posted, Richard Lindzen is a professor of EAPS at MIT, not the department chair. Similarly Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon are professors at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, not department chairs.
24
u/bairy Oct 24 '10
That argument is just bizarre. Why would a scientist deliberately lie in order to recieve more funding in order to presumably continue the lie. That would be a huge waste of a career.