Quote Originally Posted by mcatdog
Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy
It's called idiots not knowing what 'jargon' means, idiots assuming that all things are antipodal dichotomies, idiots thinking that science is a monumental conspiracy, and idiots disregarding the fact that without the super small level of 'climategate' data, 100% of unrelated data still come to the same conclusion. Kinda like how even if geology was entirely bunk, the phylogenetic tree of common descent (evolution) would still hold true since all other independent sciences still come up with the exact same conclusions
The argument being made is that almost all published climate studies come to the same conclusion because those that come to the opposite conclusion are unlikely to be published or to receive grant money (other than from oil companies themselves).

Even though the "Climategate" scientists were leaders in the field, if we ignore their data then yes, we still have plenty of other data to rely on. But if those scientists were also able to stack the peer review and grant process against other scientists who didn't share their agenda, that skews things a lot more than any research that may have come from these specific scientists. And the e-mails show that these scientists were persistently attempting to do this.

I obviously don't think science is a massive conspiracy but certain branches of science can move in that direction if they get hijacked by special-interest politics, corporations or government agencies with an agenda. If a global warming skeptic posted a study that was funded by Exxon Mobil you would rightly point out that that study should not be taken seriously. For the same reason to just say "Well, ignore these guys' data and just focus on everyone else's that says the same thing" is completely missing the point of why what happened was so bad.
Is that really the argument being made? It may be your argument, but all the hysteria this has generated has been more about idiots being idiots, not a legitimate attempt to understand.

You're right that there are legitimate concerns, as there are always within all things science. As far as I can tell, 'climategate' has nothing to do with actually attempting to understand the situation, but instead has everything to do with idiots misunderstanding everything yet pretending that they don't

As for more legitimate concerns, I'll just mildly address this

But if those scientists were also able to stack the peer review and grant process against other scientists who didn't share their agenda
First off, in order for this to become a big deal there needs to be evidence of foul play. AFAIK, there is none. There appears to only be a bunch of people who don't understand jargon and logic and are blowing it up into something it's not.

And one conclusion, the 'grant process against other scientists who didn't share their agenda' statement could be an easy misunderstanding. IDers and birthers and truthers and flat-earthers and faked moon landingers all think that they're being unjustly pushed out of the peer review process, when in reality they're being pushed out because they're idiots who don't even engage in adequate peer review. It could be like a biologist not paying attention to a creationist then the creationist screaming bloody murder and that he's being unjustly treated, when in reality he's being pushed out because he's a fucking moron who only wants to screw shit up


Here's my bottom line: I have yet to see any appearance of criticism from those who are actually qualified to provide criticism i.e. from those who understanding the jargon and the process and are accredited in the field etc etc. Until I see this the case is closed for me. On the flip side, what I do see is the hoax machine flinging their shit everywhere. Anti-climate agenda is big tobacco all over again, except 10x more difficult, entrenched, and skilled in propaganda.