There was a time when skepticism in science was desired

Warmists pressure skeptical scientist to resign

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cCarthy-style-witch-hunt-academics-world.html

I remember a time when skeptical questioning was regarded as the essence of scientific inquiry. No longer, thanks in large part to the billions of dollars in annual funding that go to “scientists” who push the global warming agenda. How else to interpret the extraordinary pressures brought to bear on a scientist who turned skeptical towards the prophets of doom? The UK Daily Mail reports:

A globally-renowned climate scientist has been forced to step down from a think-tank after he was subjected to 'Mc-Carthy'-style pressure from scientists around the world.

Professor Lennart Bengtsson, 79, a leading academic from the University of Reading, left the high-profile Global Warming Policy Foundation as a result of the threats, which he described as 'virtually unbearable'.

The group was set up by former Tory Chancellor Lord Lawson and are sceptical about radical policy changes aimed at combating global warming.
The Swedish climatologist, who has published more than 200 papers, said he received hundreds of emails from colleagues criticising his decision to switch to the organisation.

His 'defection' was described as the biggest switch from the pro-climate change lobby to the sceptic camp to date.
He was also abused on science blogs, with one describing the people who condemned him as 'respectable' and that his actions amounted to 'silliness'.
Another described him as a 'crybaby'.

However, the main pressure came from the US, where a government employee refused to be a co-author on a paper because of his links to the controversial group. (snip)

'But what made me the most upset was when a colleague from the US resigned as co-author of a paper, simply because I was involved.
'I thought joining the organisation would provide a platform for me to bring more common sense into the global climate change debate. (snip)
In his resignation letter, published on the think-tank's website, he wrote: 'If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety.

'I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life.

'Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.

'I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy.’

This sort of pressure to conform to groupthink is an implicit admission of the weakness of Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory. Real science welcomes skepticism as the engine of progress.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/05/warmists_pressure_scientist_to_resign.html

Personally, I do not doubt that global temperatures have risen over the past 150 years or so, nor do I doubt that carbon emissions have played a part in the increase. But how big a part ought to be open to debate, and so should the expected results of any proposed GL legislation in the US. How much good will it do and what will it cost in terms of dollars and jobs. And quite frankly incidents like this does not fill one with confidence that whatever comes out on the subject in a report from anybody is all that truthful.

 

This is what happens when politics gets into bed with education. Sincere search for the truth (the actual goal of science) becomes heresy.

 

So, is your idea of education on this matter include people like Marco Rubio who say they don't know much about science, but yet know about climate change only to walk back his own comments to fit the politics of the audience? Is this the kind of education you are talking about? http://on.msnbc.com/1lqnvtN

 

It still is.

 

Am I the only one who sees more skepticism towards science than ever?

 

Go Ask Galileo...

Before Obama gets Impeached and Removed from Office, I suspect he'll try to begin the equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition.

America's decent into fascism is hard to stomach.

-

 

Not so much skepticism, which questions while remaining open to evidence, but all out denial and paranoia from a noisy well-funded minority.

 

A globally-renowned meteorologist.

Still, it's all sciency stuff to the DM and it's credulous readership.

 

From the Daily Mail.

So it's not even worth reading.

 

Skepticism /= denial/unwillingness to consider the possibility.

Would you say someone who doesn't believe the earth is spherical is skeptical or irrational and in denial?

 

More cynicism, I think, than good old scepticism. A sceptic can be won over by a decent argument.

- - - Updated - - -

It is if you like to be outraged over breakfast. The Mail will always provide its very conservative readership with a bit of confected outrage.

 

Yeah, the term skepticism has been stolen by those who are fundamentalists who will never change their minds.

 

I remain skeptical of their desire or ability to be genuinely skeptical.

 

...and so is your ridiculous hyperbole.

 

So...

[video=youtube;1dqh2OfsIHQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1dqh2OfsIHQ[/video]


The Debate is Over... Over!....Over! Ovvv..er!

-

 

The OP is about a want of skepticism IN science. It appears you missed that.

 

Does the warming cult ever consider the possibility that they're wrong, even with ever mounting evidence that the whole thing is a hoax? Leftist double standards again.

 

Scientific findings are TESTABLE. The repubs failed that test years ago when they placed corporate propaganda ahead of thought.

 

No, the problem is that the right wingnuts are claiming that everything was settled when the King James Bible was written.

 

By "cult," do you mean scientists that actually study climate and those that support the scientific method? Are people who believe in evolution in a cult? People that believe the Earth revolves around the Sun? There is no "mounting evidence" that it's a hoax. Every time the deniers try to create some scandal, it turns out to be nothing. Even a study paid for by the Koch brothers backfired on them when they paid someone to debunk the science, and that person actually ended up being convinced of the opposite. Oops.

 

Ok, I see you have a prejudging hatred for all things Conservative and Christian.

Your Hatred causes you to unthinkingly dismiss all things said by them.

I get that! I've met plenty of Liberal Bigots over my lifetime.

You're entitled to have that opinion, and to protect your precious ignorance.

But here's the thing, there are lots of people out there like myself, who are NOT Christians nor are we Conservatives, and yet we are scientifically trained and experienced, and we think that AWG is a huge Hoax Fraud Manipulation with no solid scientific evidence for it.

Furthermore, by rigorous scientific standards used in any other field of science, it would be impossible to collect such data in less than 300 years.

So you can go full-Fascist and sneer your contempt at anyone who dares to disagree, but you're not going to get America to give you our freedom or billions of Dollars.

Sorry, Rejected!

-

 

So you can't answer the question...likely because the answer is so obvious.

 

I reject the question, as the premise is false. There is no mountain evidence that it's a hoax. If I saw legitimate and sufficient evidence that it was a hoax or that the science was all wrong, I'd accept it, but that evidence has never been presented. The only scientists denying it exists are either ones that don't study it or ones that are paid to give deniers the results they want (and even then, it sometimes backfires on them, as the evidence is so great).

And of course, rather than admit that my statement about deniers is right, you avoid it and point fingers elsewhere. Typical response.

 

North Pole and Antarctic ice shelves are expanding, there's been no discernible warming trend for the last 18 years we've been looking for it, some scientists are starting to believe we're actually cooling instead of warming....

Yeah, there's plenty of evidence and your post answered my question. So blind is your religious belief in GW that you won't even consider that it might not be happening.

That's not science, that's faith.

 

Yeah, not really.

http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-expands-antarctic-sea-ice-1.12709

What climatologists are saying that an increase in ice in certain areas means global warming isn't happening? Any? It seems you're taking an event and putting your own spin on what is happening and why.

"Some scientists...." Yeah, that's nice. There are always going to be "some scientists" who contradict the vast majority of other scientists. It doesn't mean there's any validity to what they're saying. When virtually all scientists that study this are saying one thing and you're believing something else, who's being religious here?

So, do you accept the possibility of global warming happening? Do you accept the possibility of humans being a significant factor?