Are scientists objective and trustworthy?

[Mustachio]

Obviously you didn't read his explanation of science filter.
it's NOT a conspiracy of EVIL scientists!
It's a very HUMAN proclivity to ignore what you don't agree with. Disparage contrary points a view, only fund projects you DO agree with (because they agree with you)!
Whether you agree with other of his ideas, you'll have to admit (privately if not publickly), he described THAT aspect of human nature pretty well.
care to argue scientists are super-human in morals and ethics?

I read his explanation, but I read the same explanation in high school psychology class. It was termed "confirmation bias," but if you are impressed with his paraphrasing and relabeling, I don't have a problem with that. Scientists aren't super-human, but let's not talk about scientists. Let's talk about data. You're not just ignoring the consensus of scientists, you're ignoring the consensus of data. A wide number of people are scientists, and yet despite their viewpoints, they have overwhelmingly determined that climate change is happening and global warming is very real.

If human nature is to ignore what you don't agree with, maybe you should consider the notion that you are the one who is choosing to ignore everything contrary to your beliefs. Scientists have been wrong before, but they also were able to prove that the world was round, the theory of gravity, quantum physics. Einstein hated quantum physics, and yet he couldn't disprove it. Some things are awfully difficult to argue with, so I do feel sympathy for you having to make an extremely difficult argument without any factual evidence to back it up. Good luck with that.

 

[yobarnacle]

I think we will find better and new energy sources. renewable ones.
I think private industry will do it.

Not a mega international corporation, but some tinkerer in his garage or basement.

I'm tinkering with a couple ideas myself.

but I DON"T think the solution is new laws or regulations.

Climate has ALWAYS been changing. Still is.

It';s the manmade CO2 causing it is malarkey.


And in a few years, people will laugh that folks today were silly enough to think it did.

And there IS NO science supporting CO2 drives climate.

Merely conjecture, and the emotional feeling that "all that CO2 has to be bad!"

Nope. There isn't any law of physics that says CO2 is bad.

Biology says it's GOOD!

Cheers!

 

[MoSurveyor]

Yes, scientists are both objective and trustworthy. They have to be or another scientist will eat them alive!


As to the poll:
If it were actual skepticism in the real sense of that word it would be one thing. The trouble is, apparently no one outside of science seems to know that "skepticism" is not the same as "denial". I'm skeptic of everything but I didn't vote that way because of who posted this poll. I do not deny science and I'm sure, in this person's mind, that's what a 'yes' vote would mean.

Sure scientists are somewhat bias but there's a very limited distance a scientist can go down the bias road before his conclusions are shown to be incorrect. And, of course, all your data and how it's collected has to be open for anyone else to look at, use, and confirm.


Of course, the other half of this poll that no one outside of science seems to bother with is consideration of the peer review process. Yes, all scientists are human (incl. economists, sociologists, & etc) and they all make mistakes. The difference is, there are dozens and dozens of scientists and would-be scientists trying to show the work is wrong in some way. Too many people think science is some great conspiracy when it's quite the opposite. Proving a long-standing theory wrong is one major way of making your mark in science. You don't get noticed by saying, "Yeah, that guy got it right", you get noticed by showing, as Einstein did, how the old theory is wrong and providing a new theory that not only meets all the old standards but accounts for other facts, as well.

The peer review process tends to weed out bogus data, false assumptions, bias, and plain, old-fashioned human error - a process that is unique to most human endeavors. It also keeps everything moving forward. The Old Guard will stand their ground on their old theories - defending them as best they can - while the Young Bucks experiment, creating new data and, sometimes, take their place at the table, often crowding out the Old Guard in the process with more up-to-date theories that account for more of the facts. That's what science is about, challenging existing theories with solid experimental or newly discovered facts and creating or extending new theories to better account for those facts.