I have been a scientist in academe and quite ruthless business. Therefore, in my experience I think most of BVL's post #23 is badly flawed - as I said earlier - a case of la Vie en Rose. I don't intend to criticise it statement by statement, however I will just add these 2 comments :-
Besoeker wrote:-
Quote:
A scientist working on a new product for say, Glaxo Kline French is hardly likely to be working in co-operation with a compititor from Merck.
At an entirely different level I, and a few others in my field, have a get together once every couple of months. We are good friends of long standing.
|
I agree.
a) I have been at conferences with people from 'Glaxo' and from Merck and it was a recognised 'game' for everybody to try to find out what the others were working on. Therefore, we were very alert to the risks of giving anything away.
b) I have worked for a number of companies and have / had ( lost touch with most now I am retired), friends in all. But there was always the current company insistence to be cautious. All the companies I worked for had strict non-disclosure clauses written into their contracts of employment.
With regards to academe, history has provided us with some of the bitterest antagonisms. (Newton & Hooke, Einstrein & Bohr I think, several in Geology whose names escape me at the moment, Darwin & the clergy, and recently Gould & Dawkins), Not always has the good guy been recognised by posterity. So I stand by my claim :- scientists are selfishly ruthless in many respects and if you want to participate in the game, you've got to get your facts right or get your hide whipped.
BVL wrote:-
Quote:
|
Unfortunately this global warming business has brought politics into science and I find this most distasteful and it will destroy the scientific process until the scientists realise and stand up for neutrality.
|
This impinges on the nub of the problem in GW. The science is massively clear and in support of AGW. It is an unchallenged fact in the public domain that USA big business sought to pervert the truth of GW science and Roy Spencer was one of those people who has been paid to seed dissent. He is undoubtedly very clever but he's up againdst other very clever people. He is also an open advocate of Intelligent Design - another debated topic which most scientists in Evolutionary studies take the Darwinian explanation.
This is why his pronouncements are derided by other most other scientists.
For a view on general scientific neutrality I suggest you visit:-
Scientists Sign-on Statement
and while you're there, see what these 'neutral' scientists conclude about GW !!!