So controversial automatically means bullshit?

@Abge - good point. We have entire institutions funded by governments across the globe devoted to a single "settled" cause. Odd, isn't it?

@Invi - controversial does not automatically mean bullshit...but....but wait? What controversy? I thought AGW was "settled" consensus science?

But, yes, if a scientist is interpretting data with the intent of "causing controversy", then I would say that is unethical. I was under the impression that science was about discovery facts and proving theories....note I said *proving* theories - and in order to prove a theory, you put the theory forward, and then try to consistently, and repeatedy, demonstrate the the theory is true. Note...consistently demonstrate its truth, and with repeatability.

THAT is the problem is "the controversy" of AGW...their predictions invariably *fail* to come true, both in terms of termperature change, and the dire consequences that are supposed to occur (increased hurricanes, increase in violent weather, etc). Year after year, with the exception of localized clusters of weather, for the last 10-15 years, AGW scientists have been a miserable failure in demonstrating their theories are true...and yet they consistently put forth the notion --- in order to please their benefactors, one might think --- that their theories still and must be true.

That sort of controversy is wholly unethical.

I don't think the intent is to cause controversy. In fact, I think they'd prefer if all the legitimate scientists would just shit hell up and stop causing controversy. When a politician with a stake in the outcome (al gore - carbon credits) says the science is settled, that is an attempt to reduce controversy. He just wants everyone to believe.

I don't think the intent is controversy, either. I think the scientists intend to keep their funding....

But I *don't* think many of them are true believers, as actually finding people speaking about AGW that live their life as if it is true (that is, live their lives by the recommendations they give to others) is a rather difficult task, indeed.

The questions is, if it is "settled science", how can there be controversy?

@philcore "When a politician with a stake in the outcome (al gore - carbon credits) says the science is settled, that is an attempt to reduce controversy. He just wants everyone to believe. "

Uh....geesh, man, you missed the answer in your own statement. Al Gore's intent isn't to "reduce controversy", it's to "make money"...he has a $$take in the game...thus his credibility is as low, if not lower, than a scientist trying to keep his funding, because Gore is neither a scientist, though he plays one on TV, and he is a "capitalist" seeking to profit off of fear.

"We have entire institutions funded by governments across the globe devoted to a single "settled" cause. Odd, isn't it?"

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. What exactly is settled?

@krellen I think we're saying the same thing. al gore is definitely in it for the money. But the controversy reduces his chance at hitting the carbon credit lottery, so he would like there to be less of it.

@abge, per al gore, the science is settled. That's what krell was referring to.

The last time I checked, Al Gore wasn't a scientist, so I'd take his opinion on science with a grain of salt. Furthermore, I'd challenge anyone to find any area of science in which there is nothing left to explore.

Exactly. That's why its so ludicrous that he said that.

Abge - you've never heard of AGW as being "settled" science? Google."settled.science" if you are not familiar with this common phrase amongst AGW supporters. Links to various pro and con "settled science" references.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2012/02/10/an-unsettling-week-for-global-warmings-settled-science/
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_M._Connolley/The_science_is_settled
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/meltdown-global-warming-science
http://www.thescienceisstillsettled.com

I.e. if the science is "settled" and they know it all, and know what is going to happen then why must we keep studying the same thing? Oh...because it is NOT settled, but when gimping for the press and begging for money you must insist the hysteria is true...thus no openness to a different viewpoint to give anyone pause to question why we are funding it at such levels AND passing bad legislation/rules because of it.

So for any scientist to say a thing is settled means he has no credibility and should lose funding on that assertion alone.

The only people who I can find using the phrase "settled science" ate global warming deniers who falsely attribute quotes to global warming supporters.

"global warming supporters"

Haha, you mean krellin, right? if unbeknownst, that is.

So you don't know who Al Gore is, abgemacht?

43rd President of the United States.

I hope to God that bo is kidding or I fear for our future.

The future of the Electoral College? There isn't one :)

No I fear for the future of all mankind if that is what they teach in high school, that Gore actually was the president. :-P

I fear for the future of mankind anyway. Why wouldn't you?

Of course I know Gore didn't get into the White House. It's called satire. An ugly piece of information that should be fact, but it's still satire.

Had Gore gotten into the White House, we'd all be turbin wearing nut jobs now.

Gore lost. Get over it.

And he's super cereal.

There's no reason to speculate. Personally I find it hard to believe that he couldn't have been better than GW Bush.

And no, I don't agree with him on everything. (Before Sbyvl comes in and says so.)

He would have continued ignoring Al Qaida even after 9/11 being more concerned with some fucking owls and polar bears.

Two fewer wars we'd be in today if we'd ignore Al Qaeda. Don't see what's wrong with that.

As I've already clearly said, Al Gore is not a scientist. I do not consider his opinions on science worthwhile.

@abge, Google "al gore settled" the top link is from NPR, definitely AGW believers. It talks about Al Gore speaking to congress.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9047642

"The only people who I can find using the phrase "settled science"..."

You didn't specify the only *scientists*. You said the only *people*. Is ity my fault you aren't precise enough in your statements?

@abge, whether you consider his opinions worthwhile isn't the point. The point is that he was the one who said the science was settled, which is what krellen was referring to.