Why climate skeptics other positions matter

The concept of scientific objectivity was along my lines of thinking too.  I certainly agree with Whitestar that nobody's research or assertions should be outright dismissed regardless of who they are, but a person's history and background is also a good indicator as to how credible their conclusions might be.

I think Spencer is a perfect example.  He's become the most frequently cited 'expert' by the deniers, and I find his credibility extremely questionable.  The fact that he and Christy screwed up the satellite atmospheric temperature analysis so badly is a huge blunder to begin with, and the fact that he thinks Intelligent Design is as valid a theory as Evolution - his scientific objectivity becomes highly questionable.

Again I'm not saying his conclusions on global warming should be dismissed, but nor should he be considered some brilliant expert who's proven all other climate scientists wrong.  Whitestar also provided an example as to why his conclusions on global warming are scientifically wrong, but for your average joe who doesn't understand concepts like dipole moments, that probably won't help them.

To me if you can't understand the scientific complexities it boils down to the question 'can I trust that this guy is right and the vast majority of other climate scientists are wrong?'.  And when these guys think secondhand smoke or asbestos aren't health risks or that Intelligent Design is scientifically valid or that CFCs don't damage the ozone layer, etc. etc., they don't pass that credibility standard.

If you have a good grasp of the science you can just evaluate the arguments on their own merit, but if you don't understand the science (and we all know the vast majority of deniers don't), credibility and scientific objectivity can play a role in determining if a person might be making a valid argument.

i was going to give a new scientist link on the early tobacco funded scientists and the straight line descent though into c.c. denial industry, but its all in here with much much more. we do have some good resources of our own, dont we? they havnt won yet.....

www.sourcewatch.org/index.php

and

www.desmogblog.com/monbiot-tassc-and-the-tobacco-climate-change-cover-up

This reasoning comes close to supporting the concept that we should totally trust all of a person's statements or reject all of them. It is a view out of religion, that says that if God is speaking through one, then each and every thing one says will be true, and any evidence that some position one has taken may not be sound demonstrates that God was not speaking through that person, and probably has never spoken through that person.

Well, I will go on record as saying that I doubt that God is ever speaking through anyone at any time. Also, no matter that God was not talking through anyone in the past, they may have a good idea later, and I will again not apply the test of absolute credibility to determine that this person is not the voice of God. I assume that to begin with.

The point to be observed is that all people suffer from a mistaken idea about the need to teach those who appear to disagree with us. When people do not agree with us we have failed to communicate at their level.  We have in all likelihood never really tried to look through their eyes, treating them as an enemy.

Try to realize that someone who asks you to prove what is not provable at a level of absolute certainty, is doing what ever so many people in science will do as a put down, as a means of clinging to their current view. Scientists too cling vehemently to their current point of view, they often resist fiercely any idea that disrupts their mindset. Scientists are not always totally open to all new ideas if the new idea calls for setting aside anything that they have decided they can know for a fact.

Some scientists will for example insist that natural selection has been the  primary driving force of evolution, whereas there is powerful, compelling evidence that most of the course of evolution is guided by random acts of recombinant DNA. Now this is not basically disputed today, but some of the old arguments about missing links that have plagued the discussion of evolution fit right into the notch in understanding that recombinant DNA fills.

dont forget horizontal tranfer don....

i do get what you are on about. it does no one any favours if scientists make statements not backed up by research as has happened in the animal testing debate, as it lays them wide open to accusations of dogma and falsehood. its a bummer, we have to be whiter than white while the skeptics can use any tactics they like...

i thought he was talking about gentic drift, which comes into play in large homogenous populations.

The concept of recombinant DNA as a base for creation of new species does not depend on any assumption of natural selection, nor does it preclude that driver.

When an individual within a species encounters a block of DNA that gets attached at any locus of the original species double helix we have a significantly different outcome than we have with a simple substitution at some point along the chain.

Recombinant blocks of DNA can produce a new species in a single step. That is to say that we can go from one species to another without a lot of intermediate steps. And by doing so we do not need to explain how we get there without having a whole series of missing links. We do not need to assume that all those intermediate steps must have died off by natural selection if they never existed.

We can see that within a species we can have individual mutations that do not give rise to a new species, and we can see how that can lead to similar but different variants that are still capable of interbreeding. What makes a new species incapable of interbreeding is a change in the DNA such that there is no way for the DNA of one to mate with the other. Most times simple mutation where no new chromosomes are present, none are missing, will not go on to produce a new species, unable to interbreed.

Accidental inclusion of a sequence of chromosomes from another species has the clear potential to do so.

But this differs from Darwinian reasoning only in that it does not depend on natural selection as a driving cause. Natural selection might also happen, but not needed to explain the appearance of new species.

It is not always necessary to look to some person with whom one disasgrees to find evidence that people are too much attached to their own understanding. That characteristic is much more widespread than that.

I think that there is an important distinction to be made between the veracity of comments made from a lack of knowledge and comments made from a lack of objectivity.  A good scientist speaks with two voices and makes the distinction between what he/she knows about and what he/she has limited knowledge about.  I do biospectroscopy and rely on biologists to handle the samples.  I am painfully aware that I don't know enough biology to comment at more than a superficial level on the biology and make that distinction.  While my informal comments (I'm not bold enough to publish outside of my topic area) about biology take into account that fraction of the information I have looked at, my biologist collaborators have a much better overall understanding of that aspect.  If I make an error outside my area of competence, it does not necessarily diminish the value of statements made within my area of competence. In fairness, one should presume that comments from scientists, including GW skeptics are made honestly and objectively unless proven otherwise.  I do not fault a skeptic for ignorance outside his/her area of competence, but I agree with Dana and gncp that lack of objectively can be condemned.  

oops, triple post! oh well, i'll use the space to assemble a few resources on denier psychology;

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias