The Great Climate Change Debate- Continued

[rob48]

In fact, the economy is so dire that they'll try any diversionary tactic to kep people's minds off it.

Iraq inquiry (nothing to do with Brown of course) anyone?

[laserguy]

Wow. It's gotten a bit hectic on here since I last looked! Nice.There is so much disagreement re. climate change/causes, that that in itself clearly demonstrates just how shaky the ground is on which it all rests. We can all agree on that! If the science was indeed settled there wouldn't be any debate,here or elsewhere.

I notice a new thread has been started,about the retreat of glaciers,though as yet I haven't looked at it at all. I did see it mentioned on teletext last night though and my immediate thought was it'll be blamed on AGW,as is everything else these days be it the price of fish 'n' chips or the rate at which my washing dries. Of course,the growth of the glaciers was caused by the onset of the new ice age in the 70's. Did anyone expect them to keep on growing indefinitely?

I'll leave you with an item which tries to make sense of 'consensus' and how much opinion is split,character assasinations,the shooting of messengers,reliance on state funding,shonky science,motives etc. I think you're right rob48,in that there has always got to be some scare or another ongoing in order to distract. When AGW dies a death,something will take it's place,unless of course the thing they're trying to obscure with it doesn't take us all out! Government doesn't mind spending vast sums of our money on perpetuating the climate change myth so long as the 'scientists' keep saying what they want to hear. Why not spend that money in preparation to deal with any eventuality instead of keeping on repeating "we're doomed,we're doomed" if we don't do this or that?On hols now for a while,have fun and try to stay pals y'hear? Here's the link:

http://southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...10318/-1/NEWS01

[Devonian]

Wow. It's gotten a bit hectic on here since I last looked! Nice.There is so much disagreement re. climate change/causes, that that in itself clearly demonstrates just how shaky the ground is on which it all rests. We can all agree on that! If the science was indeed settled there wouldn't be any debate,here or elsewhere.

Do I sense a certain pleasure at your ability to stir up things? I suppose you haven't considered that the reason sceptics make so much noise (but not much else) is so people like you can then say the above?

Anyway, if you sceptics 'win' and a few people like me doggedly keep up the noise that will mean, by your logic, you are actually wrong?

I notice a new thread has been started,about the retreat of glaciers,though as yet I haven't looked at it at all. I did see it mentioned on teletext last night though and my immediate thought was it'll be blamed on AGW,as is everything else these days be it the price of fish 'n' chips or the rate at which my washing dries. Of course,the growth of the glaciers was caused by the onset of the new ice age in the 70's. Did anyone expect them to keep on growing indefinitely?

So packed with strawmen it's hard to know where to start...

I'll leave you with an item which tries to make sense of 'consensus' and how much opinion is split,character assasinations,the shooting of messengers,reliance on state funding,shonky science,motives etc.

Oh, yes, character assassinations... Like 'I sense a great deal of unwarranted hostility from Dev' you mean? You should practice what you preach :huh:

I think you're right rob48,in that there has always got to be some scare or another ongoing in order to distract. When AGW dies a death,something will take it's place,unless of course the thing they're trying to obscure with it doesn't take us all out! Government doesn't mind spending vast sums of our money on perpetuating the climate change myth so long as the 'scientists' keep saying what they want to hear. Why not spend that money in preparation to deal with any eventuality instead of keeping on repeating "we're doomed,we're doomed" if we don't do this or that?On hols now for a while,have fun and try to stay pals y'hear? Here's the link:

http://southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...10318/-1/NEWS01

You're mocking and patronising tone noted.

I've provided links to the science of AGW. You can read them or continue to write the kind of science, evidence and data free words you have above. Up to you really B)

Edited March 17, 2008 by Devonian

[Roo]

Wow. It's gotten a bit hectic on here since I last looked! Nice.There is so much disagreement re. climate change/causes, that that in itself clearly demonstrates just how shaky the ground is on which it all rests. We can all agree on that! If the science was indeed settled there wouldn't be any debate,here or elsewhere.

I'll leave you with an item which tries to make sense of 'consensus' and how much opinion is split,character assasinations,the shooting of messengers,reliance on state funding,shonky science,motives etc. I think you're right rob48,in that there has always got to be some scare or another ongoing in order to distract. When AGW dies a death,something will take it's place,unless of course the thing they're trying to obscure with it doesn't take us all out! Government doesn't mind spending vast sums of our money on perpetuating the climate change myth so long as the 'scientists' keep saying what they want to hear. Why not spend that money in preparation to deal with any eventuality instead of keeping on repeating "we're doomed,we're doomed" if we don't do this or that?On hols now for a while,have fun and try to stay pals y'hear? Here's the link:

http://southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...10318/-1/NEWS01

Laserguy, I will reiterate a point I have made time and time again here: please provide irrefutable proof that climate scientists are being bribed to provide untrue scientific evidence? Until you can, you should be very careful about making such slanderous accusations.

As I have said so many times, please contact your nearest uni with a climate science group and ask to go and meet their scientists. Tell them your theories and let them put their side. Then come back here and tell us what they say. Go on, I dare you. That way you will truly have it from the horses mouth. No one yet has taken up this challenge......can't think why?

So far, I have been too polite to mention your trumpeting of the fraudulent Mr Casey and his SSRC. If I was you I really would be very, very careful about having a go at the so called 'shonky science' of AGW. Those in glass houses and all that.....

[laserguy]

So far, I have been too polite to mention your trumpeting of the fraudulent Mr Casey and his SSRC. If I was you I really would be very, very careful about having a go at the so called 'shonky science' of AGW. Those in glass houses and all that.....

Oh Roo,I thought you'd got Casey out of your system ages ago. I fully acknowledged on here in public and in a private exchange that I was wrong. Why,I even thanked you for it. And I never 'trumpeted' the SSRC in any way,merely brought ot to wider attention. Let it drop,eh? I'm not making slanderous accusations,I'm making reasoned observations. Why,why,why is there so much opposition to the alleged consensus, (which in itself is not convincing or even factual)?

Dev,you make me laugh,but for all the wrong reasons. Gotta go now,it's late and I've bags to pack. Agw? The whole thing is a collosal bad joke.

[Roo]

Oh Roo,I thought you'd got Casey out of your system ages ago. I fully acknowledged on here in public and in a private exchange that I was wrong. Why,I even thanked you for it. And I never 'trumpeted' the SSRC in any way,merely brought ot to wider attention. Let it drop,eh? I'm not making slanderous accusations,I'm making reasoned observations. Why,why,why is there so much opposition to the alleged consensus, (which in itself is not convincing or even factual)?

Dev,you make me laugh,but for all the wrong reasons. Gotta go now,it's late and I've bags to pack. Agw? The whole thing is a collosal bad joke.

Exactly! So can you not see that maybe you might be wrong about your other 'sources' too? If you didn't spot Casey, maybe you haven't spotted the problems with others too?

You are making slanderous accusations about the trustworthyness of scientists.

There isn't 'so much' opposition: the scientists are in consensus! Quite frankly, if you don't agree, that doesn't matter: you (or I) are not qualified enough in the relevant fields to be able to disagree.

Now are you going to take up my university challenge or not?

[Devonian]

Oh Roo,I thought you'd got Casey out of your system ages ago. I fully acknowledged on here in public and in a private exchange that I was wrong. Why,I even thanked you for it. And I never 'trumpeted' the SSRC in any way,merely brought ot to wider attention. Let it drop,eh? I'm not making slanderous accusations,I'm making reasoned observations. Why,why,why is there so much opposition to the alleged consensus, (which in itself is not convincing or even factual)?

Dev,you make me laugh,but for all the wrong reasons. Gotta go now,it's late and I've bags to pack. Agw? The whole thing is a collosal bad joke.

Contemptuous laughter? It's probably best you do go :huh:

[VillagePlank]

... the trustworthyness of scientists ...

Think you'd best widen your reading material.

For a first one, what about the experts in the field and in the country (UK) on how science is doing? How about the Select Committee on Science and Technology? Well, if you'd extend the debate to include these guys you will note in their 3rd report, chapter one is subtitled - a crisis of trust.

And, further, it says that 'where science is advancing rapidly ... Scientific pronouncements in such areas cannot be relied upon in the same way' (1.4) I am sure that you would agree that climatology is a rapidly advancing science? (ie the rate of knowledge being added to the field is high)

Indeed the report even mentions the weather: 'uncertainty may be encountered ... because the system in question is inherently complex and chaotic, e.g. the weather.' I am sure that the 'weather' has, even a little bit, something to do with climatology being that climate is the mean representation of the weather.

Suggest, you read: here

I trust that you will post your 'challenge' to the House of Lords in the near future?

EDIT: There is some evidence that the fear of attempted pressure by funders is real. One in ten academics is reported as having been put under pressure to "alter, suppress or delay publication" of their results. (Times Higher Education Supplement, 8 March 2002). Peter Cotrgreave, Director of Save British Science

Edited March 17, 2008 by VillagePlank

[Roo]

Suggest, you read: here

EDIT: There is some evidence that the fear of attempted pressure by funders is real. One in ten academics is reported as having been put under pressure to "alter, suppress or delay publication" of their results. (Times Higher Education Supplement, 8 March 2002). Peter Cotrgreave, Director of Save British Science

VP, I think you'd better read it yourself first. The report you cite is actually talking about how science can be better expressed to the layman to overcome problems of mistrust, not how all scientists are untrustworthy. This report is looking for ways that science can be better expressed in public. In no way does it suggest that the majority of evidence given by science is at fault.

As for the TES article: if you actually read the whole article http://www.concatenation.org/articles/shouldwetrustsci.html , rather than just cherry picking a sentence that fits your theory, you might find a much more balanced view which in no way suggests that scientists are untrustworthy. As for the 1 in 10, doesn't that mean that 9 out of 10 (an overwhelming majority, I'd say) do not feel pressure to 'alter, suppress or delay publication'?

In fact, Cotgreave's closing remark is:

'open examination of what scientists are doing is the best way, indeed the only way, of exposing the shortcomings of a tiny minority, and of demonstrating the trustworthiness of the overwhelming majority of scientists'

The 'trustworthiness of the overwhelming majority of scientists' did he say? I think so.....

Edited March 17, 2008 by Roo

[VillagePlank]

First I didn't say that all scientists were untrustworthy. It is a fiction of your own mind ...

The report you cite is actually talking about how science can be better expressed to the layman to overcome problems of mistrust

Yeah - that's the point!!! Surely the issue isn't about whether or not scientists are trustworthy ? Surely its a problem of perception - which, as you say, the House of Lord's report articulates very well. Especially, elsewhere, where 49% of people say they do not trust scientists "at all" on one particular issue (not AGW).

As for the TES article: if you actually read the whole article http://www.concatenation.org/articles/shouldwetrustsci.html , rather than just cherry picking a sentence that fits your theory, you might find a much more balanced view which in no way suggests that scientists are untrustworthy.

See above !

As for the 1 in 10, doesn't that mean that 9 out of 10 (an overwhelming majority, I'd say) do not feel pressure to 'alter, suppress or delay publication'?

Indeed it does! 10% is still quite a number, though. I notice you've missed out the university funding scandal (by the UK government) Let's hope the 10% don't all work in climatology, huh?

In fact, Cotgreave's closing remark is: 'open examination of what scientists are doing is the best way, indeed the only way, of exposing the shortcomings of a tiny minority, and of demonstrating the trustworthiness of the overwhelming majority of scientists'

But the we're in no position to judge, either way, didn't you say? I think so.

here's a rather more enlightening extension of your above quote ...

we should retain a questioning and probing attitude to their work. In particular, we should not knock the media for stirring up trouble about science, because open examination of what scientists are doing is the best way, indeed the only way, of exposing the shortcomings of a tiny minority

EDIT: And for clarification beyond doubt, my point to you, was that whilst you imply slander (which, if directed at me, I would find quite offensive) at some posters on here, they are in fact, not alone - indeed they are in quite large company. There is a reason why large quantities of people distrust scientists - and there are really no solutions, as yet, why that is (although Cotgreave makes an admirable stab in the direction of distrust of anyone in authority) Indeed, I 'bold'ed a crisis of trust, in my previous post. And if I wanted to cherry-pick, do you really think I'd post sources, and links?

Edited March 17, 2008 by VillagePlank

[Roo]

First I didn't say that all scientists were untrustworthy. It is a fiction of your own mind ...

Yeah - that's the point!!! Surely the issue isn't about whether or not scientists are trustworthy ? Surely its a problem of perception - which, as you say, the House of Lord's report articulates very well. Especially, elsewhere, where 49% of people say they do not trust scientists "at all" on one particular issue (not AGW).

See above !

Indeed it does! 10% is still quite a number, though. I notice you've missed out the university funding scandal (by the UK government) Let's hope the 10% don't all work in climatology, huh?

But the we're in no position to judge, either way, didn't you say? I think so.

So VP, just so I get this right. You are saying that the science behind AGW is not at fault, just the public's perception of it, yes?

I stand by the fact that 10% is a very small amount and as Cotgreave says 'does not mean that these people actually did cheat when they reported their science'. So it's likely to even be less than 10%. Even if we do assume 10% that means 90% of science is properly done, yes?

Actually what I said was that without approriate academic training, I don't think any of us is able to disagree with the scientists. I can't judge for or against, but then I put my trust in many other people who are more appropriately qualified/trained in their field than I am, so I don't have a problem with doing the same with climate science. To put it another way, why does anyone unqualified/trained in climate science think they can know more than those who are?

I have no problem at all with questioning the work of any academic, if it can be supported with approriate evidence derived from an understanding of the subject. As I have said many times, that is what academia does and that is what it is there for. However, a consensus of qualified, peer-reviewed academics know what they are talking about, and it is not the job of anyone unqualified to suggest that they don't until they can show why, within the recognised framework of evidence and theory, they are wrong.

Edited March 17, 2008 by Roo

[Admiral_Bobski]

So VP, just so I get this right. You are saying that the science behind AGW is not at fault, just the public's perception of it, yes?

I think it's more a case of the public being rightfully wary of science that isn't proved to be faultless.

Saying that we should trust the climate scientists for the same reason we trust aeronautical engineers (as has been said before) is logically flawed. Aeronautical engineering is a well established science, whereas climate science is still essentially a newcomer. I think it would be fairer to say that we should trust the climate scientists for the same reason we trusted mediaeval natural philosophers - they were aware that flight was possible because they could see birds doing it, but they couldn't design an aircraft.

The natural philosophers were not untrustworthy. They might seem untrustworthy, in retrospect, because their beliefs and understandings were flawed, but we only realise that their beliefs and understandings were flawed in hindsight. Without the benefit of hindsight, how is any of us supposed to conclude that climate scientists are right?

So when we talk about "trust" we are not necessarily insinuating that the scientists in question are wickedly twirling their moustaches like Dick Dastardly (although I'm sure that some people do insinuate that), it's rather more a question of whether or not we should put our faith in the possibility that their current understanding is correct, which is something that neither we nor they can know.

CB

[Thundery wintry showers]

I do think the peer review system does contain flaws, for instance if the peer review panel all have views at a similar end of the spectrum, or you have internalised productions where people peer-review each other's papers, there is a risk of bias creeping in. However, it is fair to say that the AGW argument is based on sound scientific understanding- there is a lot of uncertainty involved, but most of the processes are broadly understood.

I'm not sure about the argument that nobody without academic training is able to disagree with the scientists- there are people who have at least some understanding of the science without undergoing significant formal training, some research into it as a hobby for instance. However, where I will agree is that any disagreement with the scientists will be unconvincing unless it's supported by evidence that offers a genuine challenge to the scientists' own evidence in favour of AGW.

Most of the links provided by Laserguy et al. have offered little in the way of robust challenges, and more of an element of "we have a strong right wing agenda, we are economists through and through and we don't want to take any risks with the economy at all, so therefore we should reject AGW". I do, however, broadly agree with one of Laserguy's recurring points re. using AGW as a reason to cut emissions. I reckon that if the authorities emphasised that "cleaning up our act" would be a good idea because of general sustainability issues, even if AGW turned out to be overestimated by the climate scientists, then more people would be inclined to take action.

[Devonian]

I think it's more a case of the public being rightfully wary of science that isn't proved to be faultless.

Saying that we should trust the climate scientists for the same reason we trust aeronautical engineers (as has been said before) is logically flawed. Aeronautical engineering is a well established science, whereas climate science is still essentially a newcomer. I think it would be fairer to say that we should trust the climate scientists for the same reason we trusted mediaeval natural philosophers - they were aware that flight was possible because they could see birds doing it, but they couldn't design an aircraft.

That's grossly unfair. You really need, as I have, to meet a few of the kind of people, to get a feeling of the amazing in depth knowledge of the workings of the atmosphere, the Met O employ before you so belittle them :lol: .

The natural philosophers were not untrustworthy. They might seem untrustworthy, in retrospect, because their beliefs and understandings were flawed, but we only realise that their beliefs and understandings were flawed in hindsight. Without the benefit of hindsight, how is any of us supposed to conclude that climate scientists are right?

With respect, who are you to judge?

So when we talk about "trust" we are not necessarily insinuating that the scientists in question are wickedly twirling their moustaches like Dick Dastardly (although I'm sure that some people do insinuate that), it's rather more a question of whether or not we should put our faith in the possibility that their current understanding is correct, which is something that neither we nor they can know.

CB

Again, who are you, with (genuine!) respect, to judge? They DO know much more than you or I.

[VillagePlank]

So VP, just so I get this right. You are saying that the science behind AGW is not at fault, just the public's perception of it, yes?

You simply can't bifurcate the debate on demand as it were. There are two questions, in my opinion ....

(i) Is the raw science good

(ii) Can we trust the scientists

(i) In most cases, yes. They might have arrived at different conclusions than, say, I might have; which is perfectly rational. There is a huge amount of misperception that the data can only show one conclusion. This is, of course, true in some cases, but in the majority of (natural world) cases it isn't. Cup half empty, cup half full - still the data shows 50% of H20.

(ii) In the vast majority of cases, yes. I note, with interest, the lack of distinction between academic scientists and industry scientists. Is one more trustworthy than the other? Don't forget the UK government set up a scheme that they would fund 50% of research if the university could find funding for the other 50%. Where do you get that sort of money from? I think you'll find that that'll be mainly business.

The fact of the matter is that a lot of people don't trust scientists, for reasons that a lot of people really aren't that sure about.

....They DO know much more than you or I.

About what? Everything?

Edited March 18, 2008 by VillagePlank

[Devonian]

bout what? Everything?

Oh, for heavens sake :lol: read the bloomin' posts. Met Office, Hadley Centre, surely you know what they do?

[VillagePlank]

Oh, for heavens sake :lol: read the bloomin' posts. Met Office, Hadley Centre, surely you know what they do?

Do all the scientists in the world work for the Met Office/Hadley ? I think we are talking generically about all scientists, aren't we?

[Devonian]

Do all the scientists in the world work for the Met Office/Hadley ? I think we are talking generically about all scientists, aren't we?

I replied to a post saying this "Saying that we should trust the climate scientists...whereas climate science...we should trust the climate scientists..." who do you expect me to refer to in such a case?

[Admiral_Bobski]

That's grossly unfair. You really need, as I have, to meet a few of the kind of people, to get a feeling of the amazing in depth knowledge of the workings of the atmosphere, the Met O employ before you so belittle them .

With respect, who are you to judge?

Again, who are you, with (genuine!) respect, to judge? They DO know much more than you or I.

I think you are misreading what I am saying, Dev. I am not belittling anyone. I accept wholeheartedly that the Met Office, the Hadley Centre et al. are at the forefront of their field and that their collective understanding is deeper and more intricate than that of the posters on these boards, but it is wrong to claim that Climate Science (especially with regards to climate change) is a done deal, scientifically speaking. It is a neophyte science.

The comparative depth of knowledge of the natural philosophers was astonishing (when compared to the layman and to those who had gone before them), and it would be wrong to claim that those philosophers were idiots or naive or "untrustworthy" in the sense that it is taken to mean in these debates. They may seem naive, in retrospect, but that's entirely my point. At the time they were trusted implicitly, because they knew more than anyone else.

I appreciate the respect, Dev, but I am not judging anyone. I am trying to put our current understanding of climate into some sort of context.

CB

[Devonian]

I think you are misreading what I am saying, Dev. I am not belittling anyone. I accept wholeheartedly that the Met Office, the Hadley Centre et al. are at the forefront of their field and that their collective understanding is deeper and more intricate than that of the posters on these boards, but it is wrong to claim that Climate Science (especially with regards to climate change) is a done deal, scientifically speaking. It is a neophyte science.

How do you know? I know I don't know better than those at Hadley and thus I'm not going to claim their knowledge is that of a neophyte. How can you claim it is without having been trained to know what is known?

The comparative depth of knowledge of the natural philosophers was astonishing (when compared to the layman and to those who had gone before them), and it would be wrong to claim that those philosophers were idiots or naive or "untrustworthy" in the sense that it is taken to mean in these debates. They may seem naive, in retrospect, but that's entirely my point. At the time they were trusted implicitly, because they knew more than anyone else.

I appreciate the respect, Dev, but I am not judging anyone. I am trying to put our current understanding of climate into some sort of context.

CB

But, even to put our knowledge into a context you have to know what is known. With respect neither of us do, on that basis I'm not going to entertain the 'they're neophytes' claim. Do the study then judge, until you or I do we're in no position to contextualise.

[Weather-history]

From an editorial in the Times of June 1975

[Admiral_Bobski]

How do you know? I know I don't know better than those at Hadley and thus I'm not going to claim their knowledge is that of a neophyte. How can you claim it is without having been trained to know what is known?

But, even to put our knowledge into a context you have to know what is known. With respect neither of us do, on that basis I'm not going to entertain the 'they're neophytes' claim. Do the study then judge, until you or I do we're in no position to contextualise.

Now this is getting silly...!

If a seven year old learns all that is taught them at school and excels in their studies then does that mean they are not a neophyte? Does a seven year old know all that there is to be known?

Knowing everything that the climate scientists know isn't going to help in making a judgement of whether or not they know everything. To go back to the natural philosophers, if a contemporary of theirs had studied to their same level of understanding then would that make the philosophers' knowledge any deeper? Would that put the contemporary in a position to determine whether or not the philosophers' skills were as far advanced as they could be?

Knowing what is known is irrelevant (though I would argue that I have a relatively good overview of what is known, even if I don't know all the ins and outs). The fact is that, by our own admission, there is still a lot that we do not understand. This lack of understanding is all that is required to be able to declare a lack of trust in their findings. By "lack of trust" I do not mean that the scientists are fraudulent or in the pay of government, I simply mean that their findings are based on an imperfect understanding of what they study (and know). In this context we are using the word "trust" in terms of the reliability of the scientists' pronouncements, and that reliability is by no means guaranteed. Hence the issue of "trust".

CB

[Thundery wintry showers]

Here's an article which, I think, gives a good outline of many of my own views on action, and doesn't assume AGW one way or the other:

http://media.www.loyolagreyhound.com/media...s-3272500.shtml

[BrickFielder]

There seems to be two conflicting arguments here, both with some merit. Firstly we have the argument that climate scientists are clever people and have shown with their modelling that if you change the atmosphere the climate changes.This is not unreasonable and the modeling tends to be based on the physical properties of gases and other atmospheric properties. The second argument is that climate involves such as wide range of science, that the modelling must be dubious. This actually is not unreasonable either and if you asked a climate scientist to give an estimation of the performance of a carbon cycle model he would not have a particularly high opinion. I personally would add a third argument that wave and eddy dynamics on longer time scales are not well enough understood and this is evident in the fact the weather models have limited range accuracy.

So in my view both arguments have merit. Can a climate scientist who understands the chemical reactions of different gases also understand the changes in CO2 production due to plankton migration. This is why climate scientists tend to talk about ranges of possibile consequences and you need good arguments backed by scientific studies to argue results contrary to those ranges.

[Roo]

There seems to be two conflicting arguments here, both with some merit. Firstly we have the argument that climate scientists are clever people and have shown with their modelling that if you change the atmosphere the climate changes.This is not unreasonable and the modeling tends to be based on the physical properties of gases and other atmospheric properties. The second argument is that climate involves such as wide range of science, that the modelling must be dubious. This actually is not unreasonable either and if you asked a climate scientist to give an estimation of the performance of a carbon cycle model he would not have a particularly high opinion. I personally would add a third argument that wave and eddy dynamics on longer time scales are not well enough understood and this is evident in the fact the weather models have limited range accuracy.

So in my view both arguments have merit. Can a climate scientist who understands the chemical reactions of different gases also understand the changes in CO2 production due to plankton migration. This is why climate scientists tend to talk about ranges of possibile consequences and you need good arguments backed by scientific studies to argue results contrary to those ranges.

I agree. Within the minutiae of any subject of course there will be difference (and debate and areas which need more work, refining, etc, etc). I think my point is that a combination of peer-reviewed publications (I take TWS's point, but having worked for a learned journal for 15 years, the review board comprises a wide number of individuals chosen specifically for their divergent views) and a consensus formed by a number of peer-reviewed scientists (from a range of disciplines) being in agreement, is difficult for anyone to be able to query.

I would also like to define my earlier statement about training and qualification. Yes, it is possible to gain the requisite knowledge without having been through the formal process, but in my experience (particularly in the sciences) it is necessary to have studied under the academic rigour that graduate/post-graduate training offers to be able to interrogate the evidence adequately.

It is very difficult to reach that level of understanding without formal teaching (that is indeed why post-grads need supervisors!). In addition, those in the academic arena have access to cutting edge research (through conferences, meetings, research groups, etc) which others outside of academia will not get to hear about until many years after.

Questioning and interrogation of any academic work is absolutely essential. It is what academics do. A refusal to accept the integrity of the work without any evidence to the contrary is not.

Edited March 18, 2008 by Roo