more so from civil servants and non political people -- is, 'You gotta watch that guy. He is a loose cannon; he is kind of crazy. He is difficult to work with; he is an alarmist; he exaggerates,'" Deutsch said.
Not exactly sure of what to make of that. Public servants are not a good source when tackling complex scientific questions whether there is global warming or not.
I think some of the "GW skeptics" on this board are perhaps not familiar with how the scientific process works. Raging controversy is normal. There is much professional tooth and claw involved in settling the facts. Reputations are made and frequently broken on how events pan out.
Some of the "GW skeptic" scientists have been treated roughly, I agree, but pretty much normal procedure for any scientific controversy.
A typical example of "scientific procedure" was shown on the TV History Channel just a few evenings ago. The subject was when the American Continent was first settled. If anyone suggested more then 10,000 years ago, their reputation was trashed on the spot for many years. They certainly lost any chance of getting research grants, and even probably lost jobs.
If a USA based historic researcher dug in the ground for human artifacts in material that was older then 10,000 years he was regarded by the scientific establishment as a "lunatic"
Eventually, someone found out the "Clovis" people came from France, and Columbus discovered America some time afterwards. This was way after the first Paleo Indians crossed over from the Asian continent. Frankly, I can't see why such a big deal was made about it. When Cook "discovered" Australia, some guys who paddled canoes already had been camping there for a while.
Anyhow, suggesting that some Euros in canoes discovered the USA long before Columbus did, didn't go down well in some quarters, but then the DNA proved matters beyond all doubt. The "Columbus discovered the USA" crowd were proved wrong.
en.wikipedia.org
thetech.org
Same with the "loonies" who started up investigating non linear maths (chaos theory) back in the sixties. Computers had only started getting a foothold, and the science and mathematics establishment were not aware of the possibilities.
Ditto much of the scientific knowledge as we know it.
That is how it is.
Eventually the acusations and shouting die down.
Such is the "Scientific Method". -g- |
