Quote:
Originally Posted by Pastiche
So where are the deniers now after reading this thread? Updated your opinion or do you still believe that science can't be trusted and it has a motive?
|
I'm not going to wade into the global warming debate (or rather human induced global warming).
But no one should be so foolish to think that science has no motive, or rather SCIENTISTS have no motive. If they are that foolish, they've never published peer reviewed papers or seen the changes a journal takes when the editor and review teams for journals change. Many scientists are so damn sure what they think is right they will SKEWER a paper on review because it advocates a different theory or reaction mechanism (in chemistry for example).
It would be great if review teams and editor boards were these lofty perfectly balanced individuals with no biases who only want the data to shine through. But as much as they may try to do that it simply doesn't happen 100% of the time and perfectly good science and explanation can go ignored for years because it got buried in some sub-par journal (or not published at all). It does take significant cajones to go against the flow because you think the data is explained in a better way because there is a very good chance that you won't get published in significant journals and as a result you will lose funding. And if you lose funding it is not easy to get it back again.