[patio11]

"“We have to do a better job of explaining that there is always more to learn, always uncertainties to be addressed,” said John P. Holdren, an environmental scientist and the White House science adviser. “But we also need to remind people that the occasions where a large consensus is overturned by a scientific heretic are very, very rare.”"

That is a... curious word choice for the White House science adviser.

[tome]

Could you explain what you mean? I don't understand your subtext.

[ErrantX]

I think he means the use of the word heretic.

Heretic: anyone who does not conform to an established attitude, doctrine, or principle.

The word plays on lots of negative connotations (when actually there is no reason that it is bad to be a Heretic). Initially it seems a weird choice of word: basically "hey, if your not with us your against us. Oh and were going to burn you out". On the other hand I think it's one used in science history books quite a lot (still in a negative context though) so perhaps it is because the guy is a scientist and that's how non-conformists are considered.

Or then again maybe it is just a political choice of words attempting to undermine anyone that does pick at the data.

(as an aside the guy is wrong - some of the biggest scientific advances come from "heretics" making big and controversial discoveries)

[mseebach]

Science can't have "heretics". Science is about theories and the attempts to break or validate those with data gathered from controlled experiments.

Heresy applies to religions. By using the word the way he does, he implicitly acknowledges that climate science is a faith-based rather than fact-based system. Which incidentally is a central point of criticism for many sceptics.