So, you would agree then that every scientist who has taken money from companies interested in perpetuating our dependence upon fossil fuels are also poor scientists and we should therefore not believe them?

You have demonstrated a bit of a lack of understanding of my point, so I will reiterate: It is irrelevant whether the science is good or not; what is relevant is the perception of bias. Once there, the science is no longer beyond reproach.

Because of this, any scientist working for the federal government is bound by rules of ethics. Those rules of ethics permit only limited favors or contributions from public or academic entities. The limits are up to maybe $100 per year - no where near &750,000 - and the favors and contributions must be reported to the ethics bureau.

If there is a publication in a peer-reviewed journal, the author is required to include the source of his/her funding in each and every publication. The reader can decide if there is bias or not.

Not only has Hansen NOT included this information in his publications, he has not disclosed any of this information, as required by the rules of ethics and the rules of publishing in peer-reviewed journals. Of course, this is assuming the allegations are true.

So, the quality of his science or the scientists you mentioned is irrelevant. However, if I were using either Hansen or your scientists as sources, I would make sure I had more diversified sources to support my work. If I didn't, I may not get published or my work may not be taken as seriously as it should be.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

And would you agree then that every scientist who has taken money from governments and political organizations interested in increasing our dependence upon a big mommy socialist government are themselves poor scientists and we should therefore not believe them?

Kramer

__________________
“It's time to admit that public education operates like a planned economy, a bureaucratic system in which everybody's role is spelled out in advance and there are few incentives for innovation and productivity. It's no surprise that our school system doesn't improve; it more resembles the communist economy than our own market economy."
Albert Shanker, former president of the American Federation of Teachers

Well, I'll have to beg your forgiveness. I suppose I was thrown off when you wrote:

(emp. added)

If Mr. Hansen is no longer "beyond reproach" because he accepted money from George Soros, doesn't that make him not "a good scientist"? And, if so, wouldn't that also make those who disagree with Mr. Hansen, and who have accepted money from right wing groups and "Big Oil", not "good" scientists?
Ahhh, I see. So, if a scientist publishes his methods, results, and conclusions; and those methods, results, and conclusions are repeatable and verifiable; but the scientist had accepted money from some group; then we should ignore the science?
Do you have a link to these rules?
I've never heard this before. Do you have a link?
LOL! Well, I hope you deal well with disappointment, Si modo. Everyone is biased. Everyone has an agenda. Even those ethics bound Federal scientists. If you're going to dismiss the science because the scientist has an agenda, then you're going to have to throw out every scientific finding you believe.

Of course, you could just look at the science and leave the ad hominem attacks to the ignorant.

They are not the best scientists that they could be, since part of being a good scientist is being beyond reproach.

If I had ever said this, then I guess we could argue this.

Yes. Here:
Author & Reviewer Resource Center (ACS Publications)

If you could point out where I said that I would dismiss the science, that would be a feat.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

Come on, Kramer, surely you can answer my question first? Should we disbelieve Mr. Hansen's scientific opponents simply because they've worked with right wing political groups and have accepted money from oil companies?

But I'll answer your question: No, I would not agree "that every scientist who has taken money from governments and political organizations interested in increasing our dependence upon a big mommy socialist government are themselves poor scientists." See, their political and sociologic leanings have nothing to do with whether or not they put out good science. I know, I know, it would be a whole lot easier for me just to say, "Well, I don't agree with them politically so they must be wrong about the science." But I never did like the lazy way.

The problem with AGW is you have too many people doing exactly that. They choose to believe one scientist because he agrees with them politically, or tells them what they want to hear. No matter how much irrefutable science you throw at them they continue to believe because it's just too hard to look at the science. Their final rebuttal is usually something along the lines of, "Well, your scientist accepted money from XYZ, therefore everything they say is wrong." It is the last bastion of the lazy and ignorant. Don't fall into it yourself.

Well i for one believe Hansen in his response to these allegations:

The bottom line is: I did not receive one thin dime from George Soros. Perhaps GAP did,
but I would be surprised if they got $720,000 (that’s a lot of Mercedes). Whatever amount they
got, I do not see anything wrong with it. They are a non-profit organization. Seems like a great
idea to have some good lawyers trying to protect free speech.
By the way, in case anybody finds out that George Soros INTENDED to send me
$720,000 but could not find my address, please let me know!

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/distro...ess_070927.pdf

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

Then no scientist is "the best scientist... they could be" since no scientist is beyond reproach. Every scientist is human. Every scientist has political leanings. Every scientist has a preconceived world view before they even step foot into a laboratory. Every scientist receives money from someone.
Well, as I stated from the very beginning, it is what I am arguing against. The OP posited that James Hansen is tainted by a connection to George Soros. I replied that it doesn't make a difference whom Hansen associates with, what matters is his science. I don't care what ethical rules he may, or may not, have broken - as I stated at the beginning.

If you don't want to discuss that, then stop replying to me.
Interesting. Thank you.
Uhhh, this is for the American Chemical Society. While the requirements for publication you assert may be true for submissions to publications under the ACS umbrella, I fail to see how this ports over to all scientific journals.
If that's not what you're arguing, then why are you debating with me? My position from the very beginning has been that the science is the only important characteristic to determine a scientist's veracity. Either you're arguing there must be some other criteria to judge a scientist's veracity or you're wasting my time. Which is it? Would you still believe a scientist's findings if you knew he was biased?

Thank you for providing the definition for ad hominem. Why did you find it necessary? Was there some point you wanted to make?

Not important, but why?

It is true that many scientists have political leanings, but those who practice professionalism, are able to leave political views and politically motivated favors out of their science.

I fully understand that you dismiss the ethics. I don't agree with that dismissal and the scientific community in general doesn't agree, either.

I discuss the points I make and will refute anyone who attempts to put words in my mouth.

Uhhh, climatology has a dependence on chemistry. I have no doubt that author requirements are similar for most respected journals, but to satisfy your doubts, here are a few more links to well-known peer-reviewed scientific journals:

Home : authors & referees @ npg

Authors - Elsevier

Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies

Services for Authors - Publishing Books & Journals | Springer

I’ve already stated what I would do in this case. (Post #17)

I found it as necessary as you found to mention it in your reply to me. You are in a better position to answer this latter question as I have no idea why you felt it necessary to mention it in your reply to me.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

Not "many scientists", all scientists. And how do you know Mr. Hansen hasn't left his political views out of his science? How do you know Mr. Soros' contributions are politically motivated? How do you know Mr. Hansen has allowed these contributions (if they did occur) to distort his science?
I disagree that ethics determine the veracity and objectiveness of science. The two are not related. Science either is true and proper, or it is not. You can't determine whether the science is true by looking at the ethics of the scientist. I'm sure the scientific community in general agrees with me.
You addressed me first, Si modo. Do you recall? You brought up the issue of ethics, remember? I tried to correct you at the outset, but you continued to belabor your point.
Thank you for the links, but I don't have the time to search through every one looking for the requirement that the "author is required to include the source of his/her funding"? Could you just link to those pages, please?
This is the only part of post #17 which seems relevent:
Though it really doesn't speak to my point, I'll use it to assume you would check the scientist's findings against other scientists' findings to determine veracity? Is that a correct assumption?
Because you're using an ad hominem attack to cast aspersion upon Mr. Hansen's work. You're assuming his findings are no longer valid because the man is biased. You're assuming his science is not objective because he is not.

If you are a scientist, then I respect your opinion about what the scientific community thinks about ethics.For the record, please post the ad hominem attack you claim I've made on Hansen. But, we can note that when you referred to these "attacks" that you claim I made, you called them ignorant. Funny, you claim I make an ad hominem attack and you call that attack ignorant. Can you see the irony? Also, please post something I have posted that would support the assumptions you claim I have about his findings. The latter assumption would be a suspicision rather than an assumption, and one that would require at least one additional source of his findings to be able to cite his publications in the future.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

Because he has shown nothing but integrity throughout his entire career, as far as i know.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

IIRC, wasn't Hansen part of a group in the 1970s warning us about the impending ice age?

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum