The 'Great Divide' Thoughts on why simple science and data can become so divisive?

[Methuselah]

Me too Sparks ( which is why I thought it best to air it?) Again , notwithstanding what has been said about 'forum guidelines' and 'Selective threads' Truth is 'Truth' and if folk , either through wish or ignorance, wish to post inaccuracies then surely they should be picked up at the point of generation than be dealt with in some unrelated, nay opposite 'flavour' , thread?

 

Am I the only person that values the rights of the 'Lurker' here? Surely we all , in law, owe a 'Duty of Care' to our fellow Wo/Man?

 

It appears that one way of dis-information is to repeat an untruth to the point that folk , with no massive interest, become confused as to what is 'real' and what is 'lie'?

 

Folk need not enter into conversation ( and maybe another of the plethora of 'rules and guidelines' should include the 'right' to correct erroneous data? ) but surely we want a forum full of 'Fact' and not a mish mash of babble ,lies and dis-information? How can we be expected to come into meaningful conversation if we are allowed to grow up on 'Wrong' science? How can we even talk if someone comes to the table , fully believing they are right 'cause they saw it here on NetW' only to be made feel foolish when introduced to the facts?

 

The issues about the 'Pole' highlight this quite well but it is not just 'at the Pole' that we find this occur and folk have found their rights to post curtailed because they saw fit to challenge, and correct mis-information.

 

This move things on further to how the 'debate' is managed. It would appear that some folk generate more 'Work' for the Mod team than others. This is not necessarily due to the nasty posting style but due to the constant complaints , from a small number of posters, that ' The Team' receive, and are duty bound to deal with.

 

When we hear of 'Team Workload' is it due to individuals posting or attempts, by others, to cause 'a stink' time and time again about a certain poster ( we none of us are immune to the 'Shiite Sticks' syndrome no matter how immune we feel we are?) to the point that it is 'easier' for the team to 'ban' the poster and limit their own workload?

 

Other 'Political parties', of past ages , of small number but great intentions, have used this ploy to silence opposition and gain 'Power' beyond their popular remit? We should not allow our site to have this happen here merely to 'ease the logistics of running said site' .

 

If nonsense is posted it should be corrected and we should have some way of this appearing on the thread where the 'nonsense' is posted? I ,for one , have no issue with this being facilitated by mebers of 'the Team' but do feel it important that such errors are corrected so that , when we do meet, we are all singing from the same hymesheet?

If you want to argue a point, Ian, just copy the post into the appropriate thread and we can all discuss it there?

[jethro]

I thought this thread was supposed to be about why science can be divisive. It's turning into a 'let's moan about the three separate threads'.

 

You do all realise that those complaints, regardless of how you wrap up the complaint, just make you sound as though you're foot stomping because your ability to argue has been curtailed in a few threads. It makes the reasons behind those three threads all the more valid.

[Jax]

Is Science divisive or do people just have a view/opinion on it?

 

great divide? not unless you work to make it one.

 

You can have a view and a stance but it is how you "deliver" that with data that makes a difference and *not* taking a "this is how it is and how it will be" approach, because we *do not know that*.

 

Taking any projection data must be taken with a lorry of salt because it is all subject to change (and often does)

 

Original question, is it such a great divide? is simple science coming second? and why is it divisive?

 

because a few make it so, but the majority do not.

 

The few need to listen to the majority, only then can progress be made, shouting in a gale will help you not.

 

So make not a storm but a shower and maybe grow that, it may/may not be the right course or the time, remember that, arguments and cases to be made have their time and place, but *YOU* have to make the right choice to decide when and how to embattle them.

[Crepuscular Ray]

It's not the science itself that's divisive, but scientists, their backers and others with political or economic agendas and vested interests (and I'm deliberately not going into the field of religion vs. science here so won't mention Darwin). It also applies in archaeology, history and other fields.

 

Scientists are as petty, factional, snobby, cliquey, subject to peer-pressure, open to financial pressures and just plain childish as the rest of us!

 

There have been plenty of instances in the past of new theories or discoveries being pooh-poohed by the establishment in a particular discipline with no attempt even to examine the evidence (Hutton and Uniformitarianism vs. Catastrophism, Alfred Wegener and continental drift and Luis Alvarez and the end of the dinosaurs being caused by a meteorite strike, etc. in geology; the Big Bang vs. the Steady State in cosmology, etc., etc., etc.). [As far as the end of the dinosaurs is concerned, it's still beyond me why scientific opinion appears to be divided along the lines that the Cretaceous mass extinction has to have been caused by either the meteorite that bashed into Chicxulub or the vulcanism that produced the Deccan traps, rather than a combination of both, given that the former occurred part-way through the latter.]

 

Big business needs to protect its financial interests and will presumably fund or promote research that helps to do this or cherry-pick from among or spin the results - and this applies on both sides of the AGW debate.

 

There is also added pressure on scientists to conform to the consensus in their particular neck of the woods or discipline. If they don't, they don't get published; if they don't get published, they lose funding.

 

 

While many ideas - obviously - turn out to be whacky, it's the refusal by some even to consider that there might be something to learn that drives me nuts. Examine the data scientifically and critically, by all means, but examine them (where the scientists involved publish, and if they don't in this day and age, something seems suspect, as far as I'm concerned).

 

Jax, I would add that on occasion, the majority might learn something from listening to the few rather than shouting them down or "embattling" them.

Edited July 9, 2013 by Crepuscular Ray

[Harve]

Science only seems to be described as 'not black and white' (which to me goes against its very definition!) and disputed by non-scientists when its findings have implications on the way we live.

Edited July 9, 2013 by Harve

[nitro_deluxe]

Brown envelopes talk..then who talks the loudest (usually but not always..) wins.

Trust between ordinary folk and authority has I'm afraid to say been eroded over the years and decades - politics gets into near enough everything today, not adding to the cause in the vast majority of cases. The divisions get wider, scepticism creeps in and now..more people just don't want to know or listen...or can't simply be bothered.

Human nature, as always prevails - generally speaking, actually attempting to force any political or scientific thoughts or ideals, sometimes under duress, is more than likely to backfire now than say even three to five years ago?

Information maybe power - but more people are now in-powered than ever before. That's why our 'leaders' et al are step by step gradually eroding our freedoms and liberties, even the more recent monitoring and surveillance laws, because they're unhappy to lose their grip..on power.

Edited July 9, 2013 by triple_x1

[Gray-Wolf]

Whilst i take on board what was said a little up the thread I still feel that the 'divide' is not healed but made wider by allowing uncorrected gibberish , from both sides?, to remain unchallenged within threads?

 

Were it the model thread then 'corrections aplenty' would appear and our many 'novices' ( certainly me among them) learn by those addendum's? to think that folk will happily go off to google every 'snippet' is , for me, a big step away from the day to day reality I recognise?

 

Simple corrections of 'factual' information do not only 'stick' in a persons mind ( due to the 'correction' highlighting the 'error'?) but also help educate the original poster ( who may have actually sought to deceive and is shown the folly of that action?)?

 

As was said early on in the thread the issue may be created by nature and not by design? Some folk, and I'm sorry Dawn but I see this as true, are more 'Conservative' in their 'world view' due to a differing ability to 'emote' comparedto some others . Asbergers http://aspergersquiz.com/ is, I believe, one 'extreme' of this gradation of the human condition with HSP (or innate sensitiveness as Carl Jung originally coined it) being the other extreme?

 

 Each and every one of us fit in somewhere along this line of emotional competence. In the U.S. studies clearly show that the more 'pragmatic' a soul is the more 'Republican' they are and so their 'stance' on climate is more easily predictable.

 

So part of the 'divide' must surely be due to our basic phsychological makeup and , as in all things, we will sit more comfortably with that which reinforces our core way of 'being'. Any 'challenge' to those core values is viewed as an assault on our deepest understandings of 'how' the world is and who among us will have their personality questioned without feeling pricked?

 

do we not have posters on here who very quickly resort to the " so we must all return to living in a cave then?" or " well without that computer we wouldn't even be having this conversation..." when the science appears to confirm how poorly the planet is doing?

 

 The 'Great Divide' , I believe, merely highlights the two extremes of the human condition and , if so,  surely  it would  be far better to accept it as such and see it not as an 'Us or Them'  thing but an opportunity for both flavours of personality to accept the others strengths ( and not deride them as weaknesses) and 'share' in these qualities to afford a broader understanding of the issues to hand?

 

Anyhoo's, we seem to have a lot of folk labouring over the set up of the C&E section and not on the 'topic' of the thread as titled?

 

If someone wishes to further discuss those issues  then maybe they would like to set up a separate thread  so this subject does not become de-railed or bogged down ?

Edited July 10, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[jethro]

Whilst i take on board what was said a little up the thread I still feel that the 'divide' is not healed but made wider by allowing uncorrected gibberish , from both sides?, to remain unchallenged within threads?

 

Were it the model thread then 'corrections aplenty' would appear and our many 'novices' ( certainly me among them) learn by those addendum's? to think that folk will happily go off to google every 'snippet' is , for me, a big step away from the day to day reality I recognise?

 

Simple corrections of 'factual' information do not only 'stick' in a persons mind ( due to the 'correction' highlighting the 'error'?) but also help educate the original poster ( who may have actually sought to deceive and is shown the folly of that action?)?

 

As was said early on in the thread the issue may be created by nature and not by design? Some folk, and I'm sorry Dawn but I see this as true, are more 'Conservative' in their 'world view' due to a differing ability to 'emote' comparedto some others . Asbergers http://aspergersquiz.com/ is, I believe, one 'extreme' of this gradation of the human condition with HSP (or innate sensitiveness as Carl Jung originally coined it) being the other extreme?

 

 Each and every one of us fit in somewhere along this line of emotional competence. In the U.S. studies clearly show that the more 'pragmatic' a soul is the more 'Republican' they are and so their 'stance' on climate is more easily predictable.

 

So part of the 'divide' must surely be due to our basic phsychological makeup and , as in all things, we will sit more comfortably with that which reinforces our core way of 'being'. Any 'challenge' to those core values is viewed as an assault on our deepest understandings of 'how' the world is and who among us will have their personality questioned without feeling pricked?

 

do we not have posters on here who very quickly resort to the " so we must all return to living in a cave then?" or " well without that computer we wouldn't even be having this conversation..." when the science appears to confirm how poorly the planet is doing?

 

 The 'Great Divide' , I believe, merely highlights the two extremes of the human condition and , if so,  surely  it would  be far better to accept it as such and see it not as an 'Us or Them'  thing but an opportunity for both flavours of personality to accept the others strengths ( and not deride them as weaknesses) and 'share' in these qualities to afford a broader understanding of the issues to hand?

 

That's easy to solve Ian.

 

Don't judge people, accept them as they are, respect their right to their own views and stop thinking anyone has a god given right to correct, convince and argue. If folk want to proclaim an explosion of Buttercups has altered the equilibrium of the planet by increasing the amount of sunlight reflected back to space, then they have every right to do so. This is a public forum for folk to chat on. We're not a peer reviewed site, this isn't a reference library, nor do educational institutions refer to this site. 

 

And you still sound like you're foot stomping because some people are being given a modicum of protection away from the general argumentative nature of discussions on here. What you seem to forget is that everyone is being given the same protection, to air their views without being subject to criticism. Enjoy your protection, instead of moaning that you can't get at other people. Lord knows, you've complained often enough about sceptics interrupting your conversations and taking discussions off track to the point that the lurkers cannot follow the conversation.

[Buzzit]

Whilst i take on board what was said a little up the thread I still feel that the 'divide' is not healed but made wider by allowing uncorrected gibberish , from both sides?, to remain unchallenged within threads?

 

Were it the model thread then 'corrections aplenty' would appear and our many 'novices' ( certainly me among them) learn by those addendum's? to think that folk will happily go off to google every 'snippet' is , for me, a big step away from the day to day reality I recognise?

 

Simple corrections of 'factual' information do not only 'stick' in a persons mind ( due to the 'correction' highlighting the 'error'?) but also help educate the original poster ( who may have actually sought to deceive and is shown the folly of that action?)?

 

Sounds to me like you should take some time and create your own climate forum... Then you can run it as you like while also posting on Netweather. By the way - do you believe in the Hopi lower and higher path and the Blue Star prophecy ? or is it unrelated to your passion on climate ?

Edited July 10, 2013 by Buzzit

[Paul]

There does seem to be a strong need in some to 'correct' others and to tell them that their opinions are worthless/wrong for whatever reason. I think it's human nature to bite back against that sort of thing, and we see that every day in some of the shared debates on the climate forum - people would be far less defensive, and far more open minded if they weren't being barraged by this sort of thing. 

 

The three threads were put in for a reason, they're three out of many and whilst they have their faults they at least give people room to explore their current views without the need to keep defending them, it may be that by exploring them they eventually change their opinion based on the evidence they or others find. It may also be that by having separate threads the lurker who's just reading up gets to form a much more informed opinion because there's more discussion and less argument going on within those threads, and yes it may be that the threads allow the odd incorrect assumption to go unchecked within the context of that single thread, but since I'd suggest most people wanting to learn will learn from more than one thread, and more than one source I'd say that risk is limited.

 

This thread has certainly shown up one key thing in my opinion - the need to keep these threads, the need to police them effectively and the need to continue to monitor how they go, because without them it's clear that some people are unable to get out of this mindset of wanting to stamp their opinions all over these debates and respond to every single point they see as 'wrong' because their opinions don't match. It's that sort of thing which stifles debate, and has caused problems in this part of the forum for some time, so if the separate threads stop that, and allow the discussions to breathe and the tone to become less defensive then it can only be a good thing.

 

As an addition, I'd also recommend more people use the blogs on here to perhaps flesh out opinions, clarify positions and generally have a bit of space to think out loud away from the hustle and bustle of the forum.

http://forum.netweather.tv/blogs/

[Methuselah]

Then there's this: http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3188/Perceptions-are-not-reality-the-top-10-we-get-wrong.aspx

 

Okay, it's sod all to do with climate, but it sure points towards a divide between truth and perception...

[knocker]

Sense About Science guide "Making Sense of Uncertainty

 

http://www.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/resources/127/SAS012_MSU_ONLINE.pdf

[Jax]

 

Jax, I would add that on occasion, the majority might learn something from listening to the few rather than shouting them down or "embattling" them.

Oh I quite agree, the point I was trying to make was sometimes finding the right time and place to do that is just as important.

 

A poor analogy is "Chuggers", they often represent a good cause but they often cause resent in the *way* they do it, better to say join forces at an organised even (have a stall), there people will know what to expect.

[knocker]

Interesting piece in the Irish Times. I like the quote from Carl Sagan, “We live in a society absolutely dependent on science and technology and yet have cleverly arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. That’s a clear prescription for disaster.â€

 

Society would benefit from a better understanding of what is and isn’t science

 

A theory is distinguished by having both explanatory and predictive power

 

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/society-would-benefit-from-a-better-understanding-of-what-is-and-isn-t-science-1.1458052

Edited July 10, 2013 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

I think That I've also overlooked something that  in Forums like this is also an important contributor to maintaining the 'great Divide'. I am sure we are all aware that certain  industries ( and individuals), that feel threatened by the discoveries science is bringing to us with regards to our rapidly altering planet,have organised and funded an international disinformation campaign aimed at both the science and the lead scientists working in the discipline. We first saw this with the tobacco industry when it became scientifically clear that it was a major health risk. Strangely both folk that worked for the tobacco industry, and the techniques that were developed in that campaign, are again being employed by this small group  of wealthy and powerful individuals?

 

As such we should also include personal 'greed' within the elements that cause disharmony within the debate? From lobbying of U.S. politicians to  'grants' toward the running of the 'anti science' movement.

 

On this site we , oft times, see materials that are proffered by these organisations  used to disrupt debate or mis-inform the readership. Folk with concerns about what the science is showing us have no such resources at their disposal, nor do they resort to the nasty tactics we see employed by this group.

 

As long as they can maintain the 'illusion' that the general science is far from settled then the general publics less likely to call for their elected leaders to employ the measures that we are being told are necessary 'Now' to offset the worst of what we have committed the planet too.

 

I have often remarked that it appears grossly unfair that such minority groups receive equal time within the debate? In British politics political parties are given a 'proportional' amount of air-time to their parties following? Where this debate governed in a similar way then for every 99 minutes of time spent on explaining the issues we would have minute of rebuttal by those unable to accept the science? This would allow a fairer picture to emerge to the global population of both how serious and pressing our global issues are but also how sure science is that it is correct in it's interpretation of the observations?

 

As it is the general public are treated to equal say for the minority scientific understanding helping maintain the idea that our 'understanding' of what we have set into motion and the resulting impacts is a long way from having overwhelming scientific support?

 

As with anything in life you will only make an 'informed' decision if you have as full an understanding of the issue as is possible? As such i worry that many folk who are more than able to make such a decision are being robbed of that opportunity by this small , disproportionately vocal group of funded 'disruptor's'?

 

Folk know how my understanding of the broader scientific consensus give me cause for concern over our futures ( though I am aware some folk also 'skew this in an attempt to 'demonise' both myself and my posts) and that 'understanding' leads me to believe that at some point, as with 'tobacco' the science will be given a fairer hearing. I just hope that we have neither missed the opportunity to be able to make a meaningful mitigation of that which we have set into motion and that the folk who have intentionally facilitated the current confusion are treated far better than they themselves treat those with whom they set themselves against?

 

EDIT: S.I, , there is a world of difference between honest 'errors/mistakes' ( by which scientific understanding 'grows' once discovered and understood?) that are naturally made in the pursuit of understanding and folk sitting down to discredit research by finding every single missed 'crossed 'T' or dotted 'I' and focusing on such to discredit the whole of the research? Peer review is set up to 'manage' glaring errors and save us from seeing gross errors or misrepresentations of 'fact'? This area is now also under the assault of the 'funded groups' as many of their own assertions do not stand up to such rigorous investigations by fellow scientists? It is a great shame and waste of opportunity to attempt to guide society away from their scientist who, from personal experience, sacrifice much in life to bring us the research that is showing us so much. Would those individuals do the same with medical professionals who have trained over long years to bring us the benefits of that 'experience and knowledge'? Surely only a fool would reject such?

Edited July 11, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[UV-RAY]

I think That I've also overlooked something that  in Forums like this is also an important contributor to maintaining the 'great Divide'. I am sure we are all aware that certain  industries ( and individuals), that feel threatened by the discoveries science is bringing to us with regards to our rapidly altering planet,have organised and funded an international disinformation campaign aimed at both the science and the lead scientists working in the discipline. We first saw this with the tobacco industry when it became scientifically clear that it was a major health risk. Strangely both folk that worked for the tobacco industry, and the techniques that were developed in that campaign, are again being employed by this small group  of wealthy and powerful individuals? As such we should also include personal 'greed' within the elements that cause disharmony within the debate? From lobbying of U.S. politicians to  'grants' toward the running of the 'anti science' movement. On this site we , oft times, see materials that are proffered by these organisations  used to disrupt debate or mis-inform the readership. Folk with concerns about what the science is showing us have no such resources at their disposal, nor do they resort to the nasty tactics we see employed by this group. As long as they can maintain the 'illusion' that the general science is far from settled then the general publics less likely to call for their elected leaders to employ the measures that we are being told are necessary 'Now' to offset the worst of what we have committed the planet too. I have often remarked that it appears grossly unfair that such minority groups receive equal time within the debate? In British politics political parties are given a 'proportional' amount of air-time to their parties following? Where this debate governed in a similar way then for every 99 minutes of time spent on explaining the issues we would have minute of rebuttal by those unable to accept the science? This would allow a fairer picture to emerge to the global population of both how serious and pressing our global issues are but also how sure science is that it is correct in it's interpretation of the observations? As it is the general public are treated to equal say for the minority scientific understanding helping maintain the idea that our 'understanding' of what we have set into motion and the resulting impacts is a long way from having overwhelming scientific support?

You could also argue at the disinformation put out there by climate scientist themselves. As for your constant preaching of how bad all those are who don't agree with you are, well its tiresome too say the least.

[Methuselah]

You could also argue at the disinformation put out there by climate scientist themselves. 

Such as (straw men apart) what?

[UV-RAY]

Such as (straw men apart) what?

Pete, do we need to bring up past events such as emails, hockey sticks and Yamal trees. Both sides spread disinformation but if your too blinkered to see that then your part of the problem as well. I know no other scientific field where so much nonsense gets posted by both sides and all this does is make science look amateurish. Look at at the number of scientist ostracised for daring to question the consensus, this isn't how science works surely. What is needed is more climate scientist like Judith Curry who aren't afraid to ask probing questions whilst still being at the forefront of the science.

[pottyprof]

But mistakes are made SI.  It is a fact of life.

 

When mistakes are made there should be an announcement admitting it rather than trying to cover it up.  People would be more trusting in what gets presented.  There really should be a list issued by the IPCC of what was wrong and how it's been put right and done in a simple format so the man on the street could understand it.  Wording is another issue.  How many times in the past have people started jumping up and down because things aren't worded quite as they should be?  In some cases it's just something petty but you do have to stop and and re-read things at times just to check you read something correctly or not and understood what was said before launching into an essays worth of circular argument......  Well some of us do anyway.

[knocker]

Pete, do we need to bring up past events such as emails, hockey sticks and Yamal trees. Both sides spread disinformation but if your too blinkered to see that then your part of the problem as well. I know no other scientific field where so much nonsense gets posted by both sides and all this does is make science look amateurish. Look at at the number of scientist ostracised for daring to question the consensus, this isn't how science works surely. What is needed is more climate scientist like Judith Curry who aren't afraid to ask probing questions whilst still being at the forefront of the science.

 

Hockey sticks?

 

Few if any American climate scientists have been as falsely accused — and thoroughly vindicated — over both their academic practices and scientific results as Dr. Michael Mann.

 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) Office of the Inspector General, having conducted a thorough review and investigation into all allegations of impropriety or scientific misconduct against Penn State University Prof. Michael Mann, has dismissed all of those allegations for lack of evidence and closed the case (attached and/or here).

 

 

http://www.desmogblog.com/national-science-foundation-vindicates-michael-mann

[Methuselah]

Pete, do we need to bring up past events such as emails, hockey sticks and Yamal trees. Both sides spread disinformation but if your too blinkered to see that then your part of the problem as well. I know no other scientific field where so much nonsense gets posted by both sides and all this does is make science look amateurish. Look at at the number of scientist ostracised for daring to question the consensus, this isn't how science works surely. What is needed is more climate scientist like Judith Curry who aren't afraid to ask probing questions whilst still being at the forefront of the science.

My point exactly, SI...Can you cite any real ones?

 

As I think I've said before: the gratuitous misuse of FOI requests only makes fools out those who use them, having presumably exhausted their already meagre supply of genuine queries...They certainly don't educate the general public in matters scientific...

Edited July 11, 2013 by A Boy Named Sue

[Buzzit]

Hockey sticks?

 

Few if any American climate scientists have been as falsely accused — and thoroughly vindicated — over both their academic practices and scientific results as Dr. Michael Mann.

 

 

http://www.desmogblog.com/national-science-foundation-vindicates-michael-mann

Whatever - lets move on from the hockey stick - and thoroughly vindicated is the sort of exageration politicians use to tell you how great and right and just they are. Nothing worse in my opinion when it comes to the debate when you point to a link rather than the source so people can actually read what the judgement was (which contains great use of carefully chosen statistics of course which both sides do, which further illustrates what a pain in the backside it is to argue with each other)

[UV-RAY]

My point exactly, SI...Can you cite any real ones?

Lol, so your denying how certain proxies were used without telling the public just how one tree can be used to hold up part of a theory. Take a look at all those scientist who've spoke out only to find they've been frozen out. Off course if you think that climate scientist are whiter than white then that's your opinion and your entitled to that. Me I view science and scientist as constantly challenging viewpoints when new data comes to light, not shutting up shop if such a viewpoint challenges an almost religious like consensus.

Hockey sticks?

Few if any American climate scientists have been as falsely accused — and thoroughly vindicated — over both their academic practices and scientific results as Dr. Michael Mann.

http://www.desmogblog.com/national-science-foundation-vindicates-michael-mann

Cleared by his own little group of yes men doesn't make him any less guilty. Edited July 11, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[Methuselah]

Whatever - lets move on from the hockey stick - and thoroughly vindicated is the sort of exageration politicians use to tell you how great and right and just they are. Nothing worse in my opinion when it comes to the debate when you point to a link rather than the source so people can actually read what the judgement was (which contains great use of carefully chosen statistics of course which both sides do, which further illustrates what a pain in the backside it is to argue with each other)

The wild extrapolations politicians used, in order to encourage the building of wind-farms, on their rich chums' land, certainly have not been vindicated...the fact that Mann's work only involved a small number of trees, is acknowledged in his original paper...

[Methuselah]

Lol, so your denying how certain proxies were used without telling the public just how one tree can be used to hold up part of a theory. Take a look at all those scientist who've spoke out only to find they've been frozen out. Off course if you think that climate scientist are whiter than white then that's your opinion and your entitled to that. Me I view science and scientist as constantly challenging viewpoints when new data comes to light, not shutting up shop if such a viewpoint challenges an almost religious like consensus. 

Didn't you know that scientists use proxies? How else do we know that the MWP was warmer than the present day?