It seems that not even 700+ researchers + Noam Chomsky can convince the people of BoingBoing to learn about the politicization of our PhD programs.
You’re hustling a Gish Gallop, please knock it off. Noam Chomsky agrees there’s too much institutional influence within PhD programs, but he also isn’t even remotely a climate change denier.
The failings of PhD programs is exactly why you don’t take seriously many scientists until their research has been rigorously peer-reviewed by a large number of other scientists so that cogs in their research can be found. If studies hold up after proper peer-review then we can make a reasonable assumption that the studies have value and can be used as precedent. That’s also very much how open source software works and that’s why openness and transparency is the best disinfectant to institutionalized decision-making.
That’s why climate scientists are continuing to study climate change. They all haven’t stopped and said it’s all settled and they know exactly how climate change is going to specifically affect the weather, sea levels, droughts, ice melt, etc.
The lie that climate change/impact deniers often propagate is that climate scientists refuse to even discuss climate change and global warning from a critical point of view anymore when that’s the furthest from the truth. There is ongoing, widespread research from climate scientists all over the world to continue to study climate change and bring new models forward for peer review.
On the other hand, you have fringe elements that manufacture consensus by positing fake peer-review and if they conduct real science they lose their funding from industry. Have you considered that’s what Jeff Schmidt (whom I know is who you are referencing with your Chomsky drivel) is also warning about? That if scientists don’t tow the industry line, they can get rejected? These industry-sponsored “think tanks” thrive on being closed and having a lack of transparency. Why would you give these people equal credence to 97% of the world’s climate scientists who mostly work in the open with full transparency and proper “open source” peer review?
It’s a great way to muddle the waters instead of focusing on real science, that’s for sure.
What do you propose is better than peer-reviewing each other? Just taking each other’s conjecture on things and calling that science?
Bringing up Noam Chomsky in such a way was a ridiculous blunder on your part. Here’s Noam on climate change:
Synopsis:
" … In this sixth video in the series “Peak Oil and a Changing Climate” from The Nation and On The Earth Productions, linguist, philosopher and political activist Noam Chomsky talks about the Chamber of Commerce, the American Petroleum Institute and other business lobbies enthusiastically carrying out campaigns “to try and convince the population that global warming is a liberal hoax.” According to Chomsky, this massive public relations campaign has succeeded in leading a good portion of the population into doubting the human causes of global warming.
Known for his criticism of the media, Chomsky doesn’t hold back in this clip, laying blame on mainstream media outlets such as the New York Times, which will run frontpage articles on what meteorologists think about global warming. “Meteorologists are pretty faces reading scripts telling you whether it’s going to rain tomorrow,” Chomsky says. “What do they have to say any more than your barber?” All this is part of the media’s pursuit of “fabled objectivity.”
Of particular concern for Chomsky is the atmosphere of anger, fear and hostility that currently reigns in America. The public’s hatred of Democrats, Republicans, big business and banks and the public’s distrust of scientists all lead to general disregard for the findings of “pointy-headed elitists.” The 2010 elections could be interpreted as a “death knell for the species” because most of the new Republicans in Congress are global warming deniers. “If this was happening in some small country,” Chomsky concludes, “it wouldn’t matter much. But when it’s happening in the richest, most powerful country in the world, it’s a danger to the survival of the species.”
