I don't know why people assume scientists are pure as the driven snow, automatically objective and free from political or ideological influences. Asking questions is what keeps scientists honest, not blind acceptance of scientific "orthodoxy". What if Galileo or Einstein had not questioned the scientific consensus of their days?

If you knew the earth to be "not flat", that would be relevant. The theory of global warming is just that, a theory based on made up computer models, designed to render what we "propose" the outcome to be. Or not "science" but "guestimology". Their own wacky data shows that there hasn't been any warming in ten plus years. So to express a belief in a theory based on subjective analysis is hardly definitive proof you would make an excellent president. And to base your policies on assumptions and presumptions draped in the mantle of "science" is bull.

Agreed. I've gone the Ph.D. route (and got one), and yes, anything at the "edge" of physics is necessarily opinion waiting to be proven. For the most part, given time, these edge ideas are proven/disproven (or better yet, become more precise). Other ideas, especially those that have some sort of political favor (and we're talking academic politics, not necessarily state/national politics), tend to get grant after grant. String theory and global warming theory are just two obvious examples. A decade or two ago it was plasma physics (with an eye to creating a fusion reactor).

Even then, for most theories, it can be a useful exercise, insofar as the theory tends to get pushed as far as it can go before it fails. String theory has evolved much in the past 20 years or so.

Global warming theory is another story entirely. There is a huge political policy agenda that likes this theory because its "remedy" is as much government control over economic activity as possible. Thus there is a lot of grant money out there for research, and people can make money by writing papers about "How global warming affects [whatever my field of study might happen to be]".

I was skeptical of global warming science ever since it came out (mid '90s). My own work used computer models (in plasma physics), and I was very very aware how easy it was to get a bogus result from a model. A model does exactly what you tell it to. Some of my colleagues who were more involved in atmospheric studies were busy doing things like tweaking their models so that the north pole would freeze in winter.

Just as an aside, if you ever want to debunk someone using the computer model argument, point out that Toy Story 3 is a computer model.

Anyway, it doesn't even matter that I know the topic matter, that I read original papers, etc. Anyone I might argue with just says, "Well, all these other scientists disagree with you." Not that they can name any of them.

That is why Kevin is right: it's a political debate, NOT a scientific one. The entire point of bring up "the science" is to delegitimize the opposing political point of view. The only useful reply is to delegitimize the "it's science" argument by noting that the policy advocated in the name of science wouldn't work in the first place.

Well put sir!

I can't understand a lick of string theory, but I have noticed that it has not generated a single new technology. Relativity has nuclear reactors and atom bombs. I want to see something good--anti-gravity, time travel, matter reproduction. Heck, I would settle for something easy like cold fusion!

dicentra- there are dozens of data based errors in the GISS and IPCC 'models' which invalidate them. There are dozens of studies, some 'peer reviewed' that do so. But the more pertinent point is that the models are not 'science'. They are computer programs based on assumptions and erroneous or falsified data. The UN's IPCC staff is made up almost exclusively of economenticians crunching numbers. There is no physical experimentation or empirical observation going on-- no repeatable experiments to prove or invalidate a theory. In short, there is no scientific method going on. There are only grants being grabbed to keep the econometricians in business. That's "climate science" today.

I suspect the average evangelical Christian creationist arrives at his conclusion to reject evolutionary theory, by a different path than he uses to reject a kooky theory that doesn't have implications for his faith. Ditto liberals and the hereditability of human intelligence.

Consequently, it's not a logical conclusion from a person's believing something kooky in one sphere of knowledge, that he must necessarily think kookily about everything. In all spheres other than the one where his sacred cows impose a blind spot on him, where he doesn't apply his normal standards of reasoning, his reasoning may be perfectly sound.

Thus, I would be very little concerned about whether my car mechanic accepts evolution. My doctor, maybe. But most people are perfectly capable of thinking perfectly rationally about the things that are relevant to what we hire them for, despite that their overall worldviews may create the occasional blind spots.

Frankly, I think the blind spots which keep liberals from thinking scientifically about economics, psychology, history, and geology (where they almost without exception exaggerate the certainty and extent of anthropogenic global warming), are far more relevant to their fitness to govern, than whether a politician "believes in" evolution.

My captcha code was spot-on.

"politically correct" it required, in the same sense that it is politically (and not scientifically) correct to say that the science is settled, here or in any other scientific field.

The proper rejoinder for these true believers is the one the (few) wise ones throw at the religious:

"Why do you believe what you can't understand? It must be that the conclusions suit you."

You are exactly right. Climate change policy is a risk management effort--a policy effort. Knowledge about the risks is uncertain, and different people tolerate different levels of risk--standard corporate risk management. If the issue were approached that way, a consensus policy could be hammered out.