<< Of course- I forgot - You need a "consensus" of scientists to prove that any hypothesis is correct. Consensus isn't science - it's politics. >>

Don't be daft. Science advances by proving or disproving theory by further experimentation. You could call it scientific politics I suppose, but dismissing scientific consensus out of hand seems little more than provocation, which I shall assume it is.

There were consensuses in the past that the Earth was flat and the Sun was not the centre of the Solar system. These lasted for many years before disproof. Just saying. :-)

Edited by galileo on 17/01/2022 at 16:05

Consensus isn't science - it's politics.

It's nothing of the sort - maybe try reading up about what it actually means?

To be fair, just before the Big Bang Theory was accepted, the consensus was that the steady state theory was correct.

As with many other scientific theories that were since proven incorrect (completely or partly), a prevailing view often came about because particular scientists (e.g. Sir Fred Hoyle in this case) who had both a high reputation and a lot of political clout in their field (not just because of their scientific achievements) could wield a lot of political power.

Note that in the 1970s, the scientific consensus was that we would by now be experiencing a global ice age due to pollution. Many scientists back then pushed politicians into doing some very daft things, as they appear to be doing again now. We should not take what they say at face value.

The difference is now that many in academia are very proper political and use their profession to push such agendas. When that happens (similar when religion encroaches into politics, as it does in the Middle East), we need to heavily scrutinise what they are saying, given how lying, smearing and manipulation is commonplace to get what they want.

As someone who has worked alongside scientists over many years, I can assure everyone that they are not anywhere near as 'pure' and honourable as they and the Media (who have a lot to answer for on this score) portay them as.

Think of them as actors with STEM degrees, then you might see why they are not averse to nefarious tactics in getting their way or smeraing colleagues because they think or act differently. Huge egos, pettiness and agendas are rife in the scientific community.

As a self-professed 'engineer' you are no doubt aware that if the scientific evidence is inconclusive you should apply the precautionary principle.

Not lying about my profession.

As for insulting other professions, the less said, the better.

Not doing that - I'm saying they aren't all saints, and many, especially those of proiminence, are often far from it - but NOT ALL.

Surely the Covid saga is adequate proof of scientific opinion not always agreeing and conflicting advice everywhere you look. Also the global warming/climate change situation is another. People can and should express their views in a free society

<< As someone who has worked alongside scientists over many years, I can assure everyone that they are not anywhere near as 'pure' and honourable as they and the Media (who have a lot to answer for on this score) portray them.

Think of them as actors with STEM degrees, then you might see why they are not averse to nefarious tactics in getting their way or smearing colleagues because they think or act differently. Huge egos, pettiness and agendas are rife in the scientific community >>

Oh dear, more unprovoked snide remarks about stereotypical parts of the population. Even sounds a bit like 'four legs good, two legs bad'. In any case I would have thought an engineer might see himself as scientific rather than not. Accuracy and precision are required by both, surely ? Entrenched views do not help in either calling.

Oh dear, and yet more generalisations. I was basically saying that others professing that scientists etc are essentially saints was far from correct. I never said ALL those I worked with were unprofessional and nasty bits of work.

I would remind you and others here that you aren't averse to making 'snide remarks' about people who disagree with you (myself included), including those who side with scientists and clinicians who have a significant amount of experience and industry prominence - well, until, that is those siding with 'the consensus' decided to 'cancel' them for having said different opinion.

It appears some of those 'different opinions' appear to now be coming true.

<< I was basically saying that others professing that scientists etc are essentially saints was far from correct. I never said ALL those I worked with were unprofessional and nasty bits of work. >>

A bit like Boris ! What you said (wrote, see above) was 'Think of them as actors with STEM degrees, then you might see why they are not averse to nefarious tactics '.

That looks rather like a bit of general advice to me. But to be completely general, I guess you might find impure or dishonourable people in most professions, so why pick on 'scientists' ?

I wasn't 'picking on' scientists - I was pointing out that they weren't saints, because others appeared to imply they were in earlier comments as regards their 'professionalism' in how they conduct themselves on the job, and, I suspect because certain ones are espouses views that tie in with theirs, especially on an ideological standpoint.

I can tell you from decades of personal experience (including when I was at university as well) they are, in my view, at least as flawed as the rest of us, if not more so - hence my comment about actors with STEM degrees - which, as I'm sure you're aware, does inlcude engineers.

History is also replete with so-called 'professionals' - scientists included - who have done a lot of rather dispicable things or teated colleagues in a way you wouldn't treat a criminal.

Additional. Here's a story in the DT about their rank hypocrisy:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/20/people-glass-h.../

A scientist telling everyone that its really bad for us to have conservatories and we should dump them from new homes for the sake of the planet... televised from her own home's conservatory.

People increasingly won't take 'experts' seriously if they do stuff like this, akin to the antics of that berk from 'Insulate Britain'. Do as I say, not as I do...

Edited by Engineer Andy on 20/01/2022 at 19:33

<< I can tell you from decades of personal experience ... they are, in my view, at least as flawed as the rest of us >>

That being so, why make your original remark, as it applies to all ?

I suggest that you re-read other comments. I've already explained why I said what I did initially.

<< People increasingly won't take 'experts' seriously if they do stuff like this, akin to the antics of that berk from 'Insulate Britain'. Do as I say, not as I do... >>

Just like prime ministers and some of their advisers.

...Or 'Leaders' of the Opposition or their underlings. Or journalists on MSM outlets.

<< Or 'Leaders' of the Opposition or their underlings. Or journalists on MSM outlets. >>

... or absolutely anyone at all whose views one disagrees with heartily ... :-)

Andrew, you seem to be 'disagreeing heartily' yourself.?

Yes but the vast majority of climatolgists consider man-made global warming to be a fact and since it is not true, they are all lying. Q.E.D.

The latter, I am afraid.

Here is how climate alarmists fraudulently misrepresent the available statistics and data to make it appear that human caused global warming/climate change is actually as serious as they say it is.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=8455KEDitpU

The YouTuber here is Tony Heller, aka Steven Goddard.

I'm surprised anyone takes him seriously. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised, given the way some people are so easily swayed by a few articulate but flawed so-called experts who claim to offer "Real Science".

Heller is apparently a graduate in Geology, not (for example) Meteorology.

Heller claims, among other things, that the sea level in Atlanta City has dropped over the years and is still dropping. I don't know if anything he produces has been peer-reviewed, but this claim has not. That doesn't impress climate change sceptics, of course, because a view endorsed by the "scientific establishment" is exactly what they do not want.

There is plenty of evidence to show that the majority of scientists who actually study climate change are convinced that it is currently driven by human activity. It is illogical to claim that the majority is always correct, but it is equally illogical to claim that the majority view is never correct.

Like it or not, the climate-change-deniers will always be associated with some conspiracy theory. In their view, the "Establishment" is trying to foist lies upon us mere citizens and climate change is one of them.

As you should be able to ascertain from the video from Tony Heller, there is proven widespread fraud and misrepresentation about so-called climate change.

My question to you is:-

If the cause of climate change is as true as the "consensus of scientists" say it is, why do they find it necessary to tell blatant lies about climate history which conceals the truth that, far from a warming trend there is actually a cooling trend?

As I remind you all from time to time, science evolves by replacing accepted theory by new ones which explain observations better. It doesn't advance much by fringe stirrers announcing that they don't want to believe a consensus because they just don't like it. Unfortunately today's social media make any nonsense available to a gullible market 24/7.

Actually, with many new - i.e. not conclusively proven and known 100% - theories, many who think 'out of the box' are thought of as 'heretics' and treated by supposedly rational, thinking colleagues as such.

Perhaps if you read some history of scientific discovery, you'll see the many cases where such people who in the end were proven correct were treated horribly, and very often by supposed learned colleagues.

As I stated before, huge egos and rivalries often mean such people will say and do things that most people (if they found out) would change their opinion of said 'renowned scientist'. It was why I referred to them as often 'actors with STEM degrees'.

It is generally accepted that negatives cannot be 'proved', only replaced by better positives. So let's hear some.

I would remind you that in the 1970s, 'The Science', including many supposedly world-renowned scientists, were adament that there would be a global ice age due to the pollution that many of them and their accolytes now say causes global warming.

They now even admit that the science of this field is not anywhere near 'settled' - hence why they often change their claims (though many appear to do so to suit their own or the prevailing political narrative).

You should be wary of 'experts' saying they have 'proven' this or that when many '100% proven' ones do not come true, but are conveniently forgotten about by the media. Remember Al Gore's 'hockey stick' diagram? He was given that BY supposed 'experts' of climate science. Similarly with huge numbers of 'certain predictions' that the North Pole would be ice free by about 2012.

My own belief, based on what data (which aren't definitive facts) we do have - and it isn't anywhere near the complete picture - is that human activity is having an adverse impact on global temperatures (going up), but at a far lower level than is being (often sensationally) claimed.

To me, that means it can be managed without using the very extreme measures many tout (which would likely enpoverish everyone bar the ultra rich and powerful [notice a theme linked with other current events?]) and over a much longer period of time.

That does NOT mean we should not act to curb and reduce pollution and especially material contaminents (such as microplastics and chemicals dumped into rivers and oceans [including those that cause changes to us animals] - to me, a far greater problem) and encourage by the right means viable and properly green energy production suitable for the locale and which does not take away land and resources from other vital activities, such as food production or ruin the environment / landscape itself.

It isn't all black or white. It does, however, require people to have a good measure of common sense and put aside egos and agendas that have nothing to do with helping people or the planet we live on.

<< Similarly with huge numbers of 'certain predictions' that the North Pole would be ice free by about 2012. >>

The prediction is correct, but the timing was wrong. Which is the bigger failure ?

He was playing all the right notes, but not necessarily in the right order, eh? How can it be correct when it hasn't occurred yet? If I recall, weren't there some years recently where the pole ice cap got larger?

<< My own belief, based on what data (which aren't definitive facts) we do have, is that human activity is having an adverse impact on global temperatures (going up), but at a far lower level than is being (often sensationally) claimed. To me, that means it can be managed without using the very extreme measures many tout >>

In your opinion, when do data become 'definitive facts' ? Accepting that human activity is having an impact, you should also recognise that any attempt we might make to correct the problem will take many years to have a detectable effect. So the sooner we start to try, the better; and perhaps assume things may be as bad as some have suggested, not a problem we can safely put on the back burner.

A 'definitive fact' is when it can be demonstrated. My opinion is that we are affecting the environment but at a much lower level that stated. It would likely mean things take a lot longer to change - which gives us far more time to properly deal with it, or other factors (some which we may not be aware of yet, or the extent) may have more of an effect on global temperatures and may make our 'effects' negligable in the grand scheme.

Either may mean we might just have to adapt, just as animal life did over billions of years as the climate changed naturally, and which often occurred over a relatively short time.

The problem is that most of the 'measures' to 'reduce global warming' amazingly have the effect of empoverishing those on middle and lower incomes and giving the already rich and powerful far more, including freedoms because they can 'pay' for them.

There are many people, companies and organisations whose goals are not the betterment of the planet or humans (or any other life here) but to gain more wealth and power at our expense. That many useful i****s jump on their bandwagon hoping to get some crumbs of either later just shows how dishonourable many are these days.

Remember the WEF's goal for 2030 (which they took down after it got leaked and got a LOT of negative reporting via independent media): You'll own nothing, live in the pod, eat the bugs and be happy.

What a lovely thing to look forward to (except for the Bill Gates's of this world who will be living it up EVEN more than now, only with no pesky plebs to delay their flights or crowd resorts, etc).

I thought that repeated analyses of differing forms of historical data have shown the 'Gore' hockey stick to be broadly correct.

Nope.

Based on what facts?

scilogs.spektrum.de/klimalounge/palaeoklima-die-le.../

c.f. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph

Oh yeah, and wikipedia is the fount of all knowledge. Anyone - and I means anyone, can post stuff there. All it needs to be 'verified' are like-minded people to say so, rather like the 'scientific consesus'.

I can just imagine it now: you lot saying to the actual Galileo "But the scientific consensus is that the sun revolves around the Earth, so it MUST be true"... and "lock him up!"

In science, something is often 'true' until someone believes and proves that it isn't. That doesn't naturally mean that it WAS true when the original 'consesus' was formed, rather like certain medical ones relating to a certain worldwide event at the moment.

But it still means what got you censored / cancelled' a year ago won't today, because those with power say so, not because of their 'knowledge'.

I would suggest some of you take a good long, hard look in the mirror.

Thank you for at last producing a post that is succinct, in contrast with the rambling stuff which I can't be bothered to read.

Gee thanks...I guess.

Let's bring a little logic to it.

As opposed to...agian, thanks for the kind words. :-)

Your point here seems to be that because Galileo's ideas about the structure of the solar system were rejected by the "consensus" of the time, but were eventually proved correct - that this means the current consensus over anthropogenic climate-change is wrong and the dissenting voices are correct.

By extension, this seems to suggest that any consensus will eventually be proved wrong. It may be nice to think of yourself and those who think similarly as like the heroic Galileo, but it's irrelevant.

No - I'm saying that it is not set in stone in 'science' (especially when it is called 'The Science' when it is certainly not) what the consesus of the moment for some things.

The problem is that most of the 'normies' like to side with said 'consensus' because a) its easier, b) it comes with less risk of ostricisation and, c) like all mob rule, one can actively engage in its activities of berrating those few opposing them without risking being (proverbially) hit back which enjoying the 'benefits' of being seen to 'join in the fray'.

I wonder if all those doing so would actively and publicly own up to their misdeeds should another viewpoint become the prevailing one or possibly even proven beyond doubt.

I know you want to bring politics, the establishment, the ethical responsibility of scientists and so on into this, but this doesn't affect the difference between truth on the one hand and half-truth and lies on the other.

No it doesn't, but it does affect what people say to advance a viewpoint or to (as happens more than you might think in professional life) career at the expense of a rival. It doesn't also have to be party politics either - often it is internal politics in an organisation, where ego, jealosy and greasy-pole-climbing plays just as much of a part.

I will refrain from making any comments about mirrors, tempting though that is.

I question my own beliefs from time to time. I certainly don't think I'm perfect and have all the answers, but some people here think 'The Science' has essentially come with it all and what remains is mere minutiae, just crossing the T's and dotting the I's in comparison.

Unfortunately, science (including medicine) have thought that many times over the centuries, including more than once since WWII. It was because I read about this and (first hand) saw the attitude of some scientists I met when I was at school that I became an engineer rather than a scientist - whilst similar things do happen in my profession, I think they are to a far lesser degree than in science.

It's not to say engineers are better, it's just I find it is done differently, and more to my liking - though far from great (and why I've since given up my career because of the way things were headed ethically in my sector).

All I''m trying to say is to keep an open mind that whatever the prevailing view currently is may not be the correct one. It does not mean I believe in the exact opposite (as I indicated earlier I did not), but when other try and portray that I (and perhaps others on my side of the argument) am by straw-manning does not reflect well on them.

Nope ;-)

Edited by Brit_in_Germany on 26/01/2022 at 21:11

Unfortunately, science (including medicine) have thought that many times over the centuries, including more than once since WWII. It was because I read about this and (first hand) saw the attitude of some scientists I met when I was at school that I became an engineer rather than a scientist - whilst similar things do happen in my profession, I think they are to a far lesser degree than in science.

I studied Civil Engineering in the late 70's and attained an HD. I seem to remember there was quite a lot of science involved and still was when I finally retired 36 years after qualifying having worked directly and in allied sectors all that time. My last 12 years was at a Civil Engineering Consultancy.

It's not to say engineers are better, it's just I find it is done differently, and more to my liking - though far from great (and why I've since given up my career because of the way things were headed ethically in my sector).

Over the 41 years I was involved in the sector I never experience anything that made me want to quit.

I appreciate there are many branches of engineering but I cannot see what your problem was.

I worked in Building Services Engineering

I also worked in Building Services from 1996 to 2004, could not wait to get out. Luckily I had a good boss for all but the last 6 months. But one of his fellow directors got him sacked for misconduct none of which was true but the director got the Chief Exec on his side and lies became accepted truth. Once that director realised I had papers that proved he was a liar he kept very quiet until my bosses case had been settled out of court, he then set about me but could do nothing because he knew I would have simply passed the info I had onto the board.

But in truth none of what you wrote in your previous post has nothing whatsoever to do with science, proven or unproven. It was all totally irrelevant.