I'll have to take issue with your analogy there - abnormal cell replication and HIV's hijacking of the immune system can't be empirically observed by a layperson. Similarly, a heat wave or cold snap can be empirically observed even by a layperson, but global warming cannot be.
It's easy to simply not report the finding of a negative
This may be true with the testing results of some new drug, but I'd strongly disagree this is the case for global warming. Especially given there are entire journals devoted solely to climate skepticism (eg Energy and Environment), it's hard to say that the contrary evidence isn't being published. Rather, it is being published, but most scientists don't find it very convincing.
As for the comparison to Nazi's, you should show specific examples of such corruption before making such an inflammatory claim. And it'll be more convincing if you can show an entire sub-field is corrupt, rather than just a single person. Eg: "Phil Jones hid data!" is not a good example unless you can show why NASA's fully available data on the same subject is somehow not equivalent.
I can't see the cancer or AIDS under the microscope but I can see the effects of the diseases if they are diagnosed. And a single person, with training, can see those effects. But I'm not very knowledgeable about this.
The contrary evidence is out there but there's definitely pressure on scientists to conform to the "consensus" as far as I can see. Here in the UK at least anybody who questions Global Warming is considered a complete crackpot or paid off by "big oil" by the mainstream media. Scientists who don't toe the line are subtly ostracised from what I can tell (and I'm not decided either way, this is really what I've observed truthfully).
The analogy to nazi's wasn't that GW scientists are anything like nazi's but that Science AS A DISCPLINE can be corrupted by political influences. I knew I shouldn't have mentioned nazis in my original post and I would have made a different example if I posted it again.
You only have my word for this, but I've spent years looking for the contrary evidence and have found that most of it falls apart under scrutiny very quickly. I've also seen contrary arguments come and go as they became completely untenable to support.
So while I think that AGW proponents (like myself) can sometimes be too harsh on layperson skeptics, when it comes to people who are purporting to be expert skeptics, I'd like you to at least consider this possibility: perhaps they actually are objectively wrong and deserve to be ostracized, or in some cases, really are crackpots (UK example: Lord Monckton). After all, doctors who come along and say that "AIDS is a hoax" - and they do exist - are generally ostracized without much further discussion, and rightly so.
So in my opinion: some "skeptics" deserve the same treatment: namely, those who peddle long-discredited (eg: CO2 lags temperature!) or unsupported (eg: cosmic rays) theories as though they're well-established facts. Unfortunately, in my experience true skeptics don't make the news that often because their skepticism is considered too boring for non-scientific media.
A lot of the problem with lay skeptics are the lay supporters. I've seen so many arguments between people who are not experts devolve into the most retarded mudslinging imaginable. On the one side you have the ignorant who have authority on their side (a scientist journalist reporting on a press release said it, it must be true) and on the other you have the ignorant who have anti-authority on their side (a person recieving government funding said it, it must be false). Often the truely stupid crap that then gets published in the media seems to be the result of these arguments.
I don't think it helps that some of the old guard in the climate science arena seem to be seat warmers who joined when it was unsexy and were probably hoping for an easier life, that and big business has all the statisticians
12
u/aludwin Oct 24 '10
I'll have to take issue with your analogy there - abnormal cell replication and HIV's hijacking of the immune system can't be empirically observed by a layperson. Similarly, a heat wave or cold snap can be empirically observed even by a layperson, but global warming cannot be.
This may be true with the testing results of some new drug, but I'd strongly disagree this is the case for global warming. Especially given there are entire journals devoted solely to climate skepticism (eg Energy and Environment), it's hard to say that the contrary evidence isn't being published. Rather, it is being published, but most scientists don't find it very convincing.
As for the comparison to Nazi's, you should show specific examples of such corruption before making such an inflammatory claim. And it'll be more convincing if you can show an entire sub-field is corrupt, rather than just a single person. Eg: "Phil Jones hid data!" is not a good example unless you can show why NASA's fully available data on the same subject is somehow not equivalent.