Al Gore likens global warming skeptics to racists, homophobes, apartheid supporters,

[Ricter]

Quote from CaptainObvious:

And of course only industry scientists can be bias? All others are pure as the driven snow?

No. But that's the way to bet (with proper money management).

 

[tomdavis]

Al Gore doesn't really believe in global warming.

He frequently travels across the country on a private Gulfstream jet that burns more fuel (and spews more CO2) on one round-trip than the average car burns in five years.

Come on... Stop it Al... You crack me up!

 

[wjk]

Quote from piezoe:

Gore seems emotionally attached to the issue.

For just a second or two I thought you said financially attached to the issue. I guess that would lead to emotionalism though, unless he's a hard core trader like us. *cough, cough*

For a time I speculated that his part in the AGW episode was payback on the American people responsible for the election going to Bush.

 

[jem]

Quote from piezoe:

That's a primary reason this kind of research, where there are great amount of money, and potential profits and losses at stake, must be done in Universities and National Laboratories rather than in companies that have a stake in the outcome. The "data" from the tobacco companies cast doubt on the smoking and lung cancer connection. When massive amounts of statistical data from long term studies by disinterested parties became available, the connection became incontrovertible.

Unfortunately there are too many example of universities and professors being purchased for me to suspend my skepticism when money is involved. (those massive endowments have caused the profit motive to become more powerful at universities.)

In short, when money or jobs or tenure is involved, biased until proven otherwise is the necessary approach.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from piezoe:

Gore seems emotionally attached to the issue. This will make it nearly impossible for him to look at the science objectively, whatever the outcome. One has to discount anything he says from here on out regarding AGW. Scientific matters must be looked at as objectively as possible. This is extremely difficult for anyone to do that has an emotional stake in the outcome. By now, many, if not most, of the scientists working of AGW research will have issues similar to Gore's. It's very unfortunate that the AGW question became politicized and the focus of so much media attention while there were still gaping holes in our knowledge. It's a near perfect example of how not to go about settling scientific questions.

Well stated.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from piezoe:

That's a primary reason this kind of research, where there are great amount of money, and potential profits and losses at stake, must be done in Universities and National Laboratories rather than in companies that have a stake in the outcome. The "data" from the tobacco companies cast doubt on the smoking and lung cancer connection. When massive amounts of statistical data from long term studies by disinterested parties became available, the connection became incontrovertible.

Not well stated.

It should be obvious that political and financial biases are at least as prevalent in the non-profit sector. The tobacco companies didn't do anything any more dishonest than AGW "researchers", as documneted in the East Anglia email scandal. Any fool knew the tobacco companies had an axe to grind. These university professors carry an aura of objectivity, but we now know they are every bit as corrupt as any company.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

I find it interesting that Gore maligned climate skeptics as raging lunatics who prevent intelligent discussion, yet he compares anyone who disagrees with him to a laundry list of liberal bogeymen.

Like all liberals, he is tolerant of any viewpoint he agrees with.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

I find it interesting that Gore maligned climate skeptics as raging lunatics who prevent intelligent discussion, yet he compares anyone who disagrees with him to a laundry list of liberal bogeymen.

Like all liberals, he is tolerant of any viewpoint he agrees with.

Well stated

 

[piezoe]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Not well stated.

It should be obvious that political and financial biases are at least as prevalent in the non-profit sector. The tobacco companies didn't do anything any more dishonest than AGW "researchers", as documneted in the East Anglia email scandal. Any fool knew the tobacco companies had an axe to grind. These university professors carry an aura of objectivity, but we now know they are every bit as corrupt as any company.

This is a gross exaggeration, and demonstrates a lack of knowledge on this issue. There are many thousands doing research in the universities around the world and in National laboratories. Among professional scientists, proven cases of falsification of data or other intentional misconduct is rare, and despite sometimes intense competition even unethical conduct is relatively rare. These cases are so rare that they never fail to get wide media attention, as they should. And they are always considered even more scandalous in the scientific community than in the community at large.

As a scientist, once you have lost your integrity, it is virtually impossible to regain it. That is not to say that mistakes don't occur. The scientific community, which at the top is dominated by huge egos, delights in a good argument and in pointing out, almost always diplomatically in print, their colleagues errors. In the science world errors are not swept under the rug, but receive wide attention. Thus scientists have great incentive not to make them in the first place.

Furthermore the professional scientific community does an outstanding job of investigating all suspected incidents of misconduct, which as I mentioned are rare.

Here is what you were referring to with regard to the East Anglia CRU.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

Note carefully the following quotes from the Wiki Article.
"Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[15]"
[there was] "no evidence to suggest that anyone working at or associated with the University of East Anglia was involved in the crime."

If you are interested in an actual science scandal, here is one for you,
The Luc Montagnier - Robert Gallo controversy. See under "Controversy" in the Wiki article. This will give you an accurate view of how seriously the scientific community takes even the suggestion an impropriety may have taken place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gallo

This wasn't a question of correct science, it was a question of ethics, and giving credit where credit is due. The HIV that Gallo's lab worked with came from Montagnier. It was widely believed in the molecular biology/Biochemistry community that Gallo in fact knew that, but did not initially credit Montagnier. It was an international scandal in the scientific community, and Gallo's reputation suffered horribly because of it, and deservedly so in my personal opinion.

Even though Montagnier handled the situation with incredible grace and dignity, and the two have worked some together since, and even though a thorough investigation cleared Gallo of wrongdoing, his reputation remains tarnished. It always will be. When the Nobel Prize was announced for the discovery of HIV, Gallo's name was conspicuously absent. Had Gallo given credit to Montagnier when he should have, I feel certain he would have shared the prize with Montagnier.

 

[piezoe]

Quote from Lucrum:

Well stated

Lucrum, Lucrum, Lucrum, for God sake man, we are ALL tolerant of any viewpoint we agree with! It's the ones you and I don't agree with that we find more interesting. Don't be so "liberal" with your credit, be tougher, a little harder to convince. Pay attention. You might run into some high tension power lines if you don't stay alert.

Oops, I meant fly into.