[dejb]

> AI before the winter qualifies.

No it doesn't. Modelling a natural systems (climate) on the one hand and technological progress (AI) on the other hand are 2 enirely different areas. You wouldn't have found a predominance of scientific papers in respectable journals saying they had accurate models of the progress of AI development.

> So does room-temperature fusion.

You didn't read the post you replied to did you? I'll re- quote the relevent parts.

>> This method is designed to ruthlessly root out falsehood. Look at cold fusion. I would imagine there would be no easier way to get funding than the promise of cheap, relatively low-tech, non-polluting, and abundant energy. Yet, Pons and Fleischman were immediately discredited and now stand as objects of ridicule to this day.

You don't seem to understand the level of scientific agreement with regards to global warming. If it was as obvoiusly false and many deniers say then it would be - by far - the most significant failure of the scientific system in memory.

[anamax]

> You didn't read the post you replied to did you? I'll re- quote the relevent parts.

Actually I did. Room temperature fusion actually proves my point that trends exist. The fact that the room temperature fusion one ended doesn't change that fact.

Funding is political. I'm not saying that it's wrong for it to be political, but denying that it is is a serious error and often leads to scientific ones.

If you want to argue that funding isn't political, feel free to explain why certain diseases get lots of funding while others don't. (For example, guess why we know a lot about tobacco plant diseases. Does the relative funding for breast and prostate cancer make sense?)

> You don't seem to understand the level of scientific agreement with regards to global warming. If it was as obvoiusly false and many deniers say then it would be - by far - the most significant failure of the scientific system in memory.

Whenever someone says "scientific agreement" or "scientific concensus", I'm reminded of 5000 German scientists.

When I hear "scientists" arguing that folks should be put in jail for disagreeing with them ....

When I hear "scientists" say that they're not going to release data to folks "who want to prove them wrong"....

I've no doubt that bogus arguments are being trotted out on both sides.

However, one side wants to use force to change my behavior.

It's somewhat interesting that their "recommendations" line up with a belief system that predates this round of falling sky and that they reject any solutions that don't line up with that belief system. They wrap themselves in "science" to stifle debate and to support conclusions that have no basis in their actual data.

I'm not saying that those non-scientific behaviors prove that they're wrong, but ....

> You don't seem to understand the level of scientific agreement with regards to global warming.

Are you claiming actual relevant personal expertise?

Or, are you going, as I am, by "monkey sign"?

[dejb]

Cold fusion shows that the scientific process can quickly correct for errors before they become widely accepted. Even if those theories are ones that would lead to major increases in scientific funding. Maybe in your conspiracy-theory, wacky-science world 'room temperature fusion' was actually a widely accepted theory but in the actual scientific world it was nothing more than a theory proposed by a few people that was rapidly disproven. If that is the best comparable case you can find then you might as well give up.

The fact that politics exists doesn't provide particular evidence that any widely held scientific view is incorrect. Your arguments could just as easily apply to evolution, quantum mechanics or ozone depletion

> When I hear "scientists" arguing that folks should be put in jail for disagreeing with them

What? Where?

> When I hear "scientists" say that they're not going to release data to folks "who want to prove them wrong"

Um what?

> When I hear satan telling me to...

OK I made that one up. Seriously though this is getting a bit far off the deep end.

[anamax]

>> When I hear "scientists" say that they're not going to release data to folks "who want to prove them wrong"

> Um what?

Philip Jones, in response to a request for "his" data (which was paid for by taxpayers), said "We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it."

Does this prove that he knows that he's hiding something? No. It doesn't even prove that he's unknowingly hiding something. For all we know, his data could be perfect or even more supportive of his theory than he's stated. (However, there is the small matter that it looks like every correction to the prominent AGW research has gone the other way, which is statistically odd.)

However, it does demonstrate that dejb's "pure/rational scientists" theory is bunk.

> Seriously though this is getting a bit far off the deep end.

What's "deep end" about the truth?

Scientists are monkeys and they (occasionally) behave like monkeys. If your belief system requires otherwise, you've got a problem.

[dejb]

Good to see that you put in the effort to back up your claims. Despite the fact that your other claim was misrepresented (I'll reply to that separately) I'll take you at your word that this instance is as stated.

Your original statement implied to me that this was a common occurance rather than a single case. Anyone can cherry pick individual cases that might look bad against any group of people. I'd be amused to see what 'Global warming sceptics-sceptics' could dig up ubout individual sceptics.

To actually count this as evidence againt the global warming case in general you would have to show that scientists who suport the global warming case are generally a lot less forthcoming with their data than other comparable areas (or with sceptics if there was a statistically valid sample group of recognised scientists in that group).

I'm not saying scientist are perfect. But compared with the motley crew of inferentially challenged global warming sceptics I have experienced I would back them any day. And really that's what it comes down to. Nothing is an absolute certainly. We all individually and collectively have to make decisions based on probablilities. Nothing you have said provides any sort of evidence that I should trust the scientific consensus any less than for any other issue.

[anamax]

> To actually count this as evidence againt the global warming case

Strawman. I explicitly wrote that it wasn't evidence against (or for) the global warming case. I wrote that it was evidence against dejb's faith in the "science" behavior exhibited scientists with whom he agrees.

Since dejb's only evidence for his faith is their behavior....

> I'd be amused to see what 'Global warming sceptics-sceptics' could dig up ubout individual sceptics.

The mark of actual science is looking for holes in what you believe in. The mark of faith is looking for support for what you believe in and looking for holes in what you oppose.

Note the difference....

> the motley crew of inferentially challenged global warming sceptics I have experienced I would back them any day.

Since "motley crew of inferentially challenged" also describes the AGW believers that dejb "have experienced"....

> Nothing you have said provides any sort of evidence that I should trust the scientific consensus any less than for any other issue.

Except that the scientific concensus isn't. Moreover, scientific concensus doesn't actually have any scientific weight. Then again, you have actually understand science to know why.

> We all individually and collectively have to make decisions based on probablilities.

Since we don't make decisions based on probabilities, this is an interesting usage of the term "have to make".

I recommend Feyerabend and some direct observations of actual scientists. Popper's discussions of "scientism" are also relevant.

[anamax]

> The fact that politics exists doesn't provide particular evidence that any widely held scientific view is incorrect.

I never said that it did. You're the one claiming that a political process, namely funding, is a strong indicator of scientific truth. Or, are you still arguing that funding isn't political?

>> When I hear "scientists" arguing that folks should be put in jail for disagreeing with them

> What? Where?

"In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature."

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TwentyYearsLater_20080623...

> > When I hear "scientists" say that they're not going to release data to folks "who want to prove them wrong"

> Um what?

I'm still looking for that cite. (While looking for the incident that I was referring to, I found suggestions that Mann et al, the authors of the "Hockey Stick" paper haven't released their methodology, but that wasn't the one that I was looking for.)

[dejb]

> "In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature."

This was a single instance of somebody speaking as a private citizen about people being tried (not specifically jailed) for their -->ACTIONS<-- assuming they knew exactly what they where doing. This is comparable to people now calling for the CEO's of cigarette companies to be convicted for knowingly surpressing evidence that smoking was harmful.

[anamax]

> This was a single instance of somebody speaking as a private citizen

That comment is absurd. Hansen isn't "somebody speaking" and he trades on "NASA climate scientist". Moreover, the comment the setting of his statement gives lie to the "private citizen" theory.

> about people being tried (not specifically jailed)

Yeah right.

[dejb]

Should have proof read this.