No. He was the author of a early climate model that other researchers used to predict an ice age.

BTW, it is widely accepted in climate science that sans AGW we would certainly be due for another natural occurrence of an ice age.

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

Lets' expand on my statement: IF you are a scientist, I respect your opinion about how scientists feel about ethics in science. If you are not a scientist, I lend no credibility to your statement that the scientific community agrees with your claim that they don't care about ethics in science.

I am debating your claims that ethics are unimportant in the scientific world. I have made no comment one way or the other about his findings, only on his lack of ethics, if the allegations are true, and how ethics are important in the scientific community.

Yes, and I've stated as much. This will be the third time. Why do you continue to ask the same question when I've given an answer twice before?

And, in case you have forgotten, this is all with the assumption that the allegations are true.

__________________
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 to belabor the point, Andrew, but what evidence do you have to support this? I'm not looking for a litany of stuff, just a general understanding of how you came to this belief. Did you happen to check what he's said against what is verifiably true? Did someone you trust tell you he's acted with integrity? etc.

Why would that matter? Scientists are often wrong. It only matters if he comes by his science honestly and is scientist enough to celebrate when he is proven wrong.

The truth is i have read a bit about him, i like the guy and his courage, and I believe his defense, it makes sense. And we all know that character assassination is often the name of the game in politics - from both sides. This was just a cheap attempt to discredit him that brought with it no evidence to back-up the charges.

Besides, i would think that the burden is on the accuser to show that these allegations are true. I have yet to see that.

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

Please post where I wrote the scientific community doesn't care about ethics in science.
Yet I made no such claim.
Okay, does that also mean you wouldn't check his findings against other scientists' findings if you believed him to be unbiased?
I'll have to beg your patience on this. Since you seem such a stickler for being very precise about what I imply from your writing I thought I should err on the side of caution when making assumptions. I have no doubt you believe you answered clearly the first two times (if indeed there were two other times), but I wanted to make sure I wasn't misinterpreting you.
Thank you for the reminder, but I haven't forgotten.

And what you've read has lead you to believe he's acted with integrity his entire career?
Agree.

Here: IF you are a scientist, I doubt you would have stated this.

That would not be the only consideration in using or citing his work.

Actually, you would infer something from my writing.

__________________
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

Nowhere in that quote do I imply, or state directly, that "the scientific community doesn't care about ethics in science."
Why? You believe scientists want their personal lives considered when they present their findings?
Again, I apologize for making you be specific. Would you check a scientist's findings if you believed him to be unbiased?
Damn! That's what happens when I'm distracted. Thank you for catching me.

Then, I am unclear on what you mean about ethics. I will state categorically that the scientific community pays close attention to ethics. If one examines the guidelines that scientific ethicists have debated for decades, a reason there are accepted guidelines is to ensure that scientific findings are objective and have the appearance of objectivity.

I have no idea why you ask this after I say that I doubt you would have stated that the scientists agree with your claim if you were a scientist, whatever that claim has morphed into.

That would not be the sole reason for using or citing his/her work. I would take many issues into consideration: Previous works, reputation of the scientist and his/her institution, funding sources, quality of the literature in which the work was published, relevance to the point needing support, etc. would be considered as well.

No problem.

__________________
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

I don't dispute this, and never have. I've stated from the outset that Mr. Hansen's ethics don't mean anything to the veracity of his science. Whether he is viewed as objective, or biased matters not when determining whether his science is sound.
My claim has remained stable from the beginning, and has been repeated in nearly every post to you. The quote you provided was quite clear. If you disagree with my point that you can't determine whether science is true by the ethics of the scientist, then you must believe the veracity of science can be determined by the ethics of the scientist. Which would prompt my question as to why you believe scientists want thier personal lives (their ethics, their personal beliefs) considered when they present their findings.
How does any of this relate to whether or not his science is sound?

Besides which, none of it answers my question: Would you check his findings?

I'm just going to assume you would, Si modo, because I'm running out of time. Since you would check the findings of a scientist you believed to be biased, and you would check the findings of a scientist you believed to be unbiased, what benefit do you get from labeling him biased or unbiased?

(To further cut some time out, substitute any one of your other considerations for bias and tell me what you gain from any one of them in determining the veracity of the scientist's findings.)

Unless science is transparently objective, it is not science to be trusted.

That is a false dichotomy.

Expecting a yes or no to a question does not imply that a yes or no answer exists. I have answered your question several times. It is a shame that my answer is not what you expect.

__________________
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

From what I've read, yes.

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 science is to be trusted since no science is transparently objective. All science is done by individuals, and individuals have preconceptions and bias. All science today is paid for with money provided by people, and those people have preconceptions and bias.
I fail to see how. The premises are true, and the conclusion necessarily follows - even more so now with your statement above.
That is true, but not in this case. You either will, or will not check a scientist's findings. Since we have established that you will check the findings of a scientist you believe to be biased, the only thing that remains is whether you will check the findings of a scientist you believe to be unbiased. I see I have landed myself in trouble for making an assumption here, so I'll ask you again: Would you check the findings of a scientist if you believed him to be unbiased?
No, you haven't. I asked, "Will you check the findings of a scientist you believe to be unbiased?" You answer with the implication that your belief of his unbiased nature would not be the "sole reason for using or citing his/her work." Meaning you would consider many criteria before using or citing his/her work. You then go on to list those other considerations. None of which have anything to do with whether the scientist's findings are sound, and none of which speak at all to the question of whether or not you would check his/her findings. What I expect is an answer to that question.

Cool. Thanks.

Yes for oil companies. For political groups, I would be a bit suspicious as I am now with Hansen.

So then you have no problem with scientists who were funded by oil companies. And they have questioned human caused GW.

Right?


The bottom line is (in my opinion), Hansen shouldn't have worked in anyway with an extreme far left group because he is a NASA scientist and is supposed to be objective. By working with a extreme far left organization, it makes him look like he's political, not objective.

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