At what point dose a scientist loose credibility?

Question

if a scientist argued against the link between smoking and cancer in the 80s opposing the consensus of the time.

then in the 90s argued against the link between CFCs and the ozone hole again opposing the consensus of the time. now they are saying global warming is not man made. do they loose creditability at all?

i am referring to:

Patrick Michaels

Fred Singer

Frederick Seitz

Answer 1

Yes they do.  A "scientific consensus" isn't jsut a bunch of scientists getting together and voting or something.  It is a term scientists use to indicate that the body of evidence supporting a particular hypothesis has become so strong that there is no longer any possible (rational) doubt that that particular hypothesis is true. In short--the hypothesis has been proven.

Scientists, however, are just people. Some develop mental problems--or get bought off by special interests, or whatever.  So you always see a few, on a variety of issues, who go off into la-la land. And yes, that does cost them their credibility.

BTW--there IS a form of opposing the existing paradign tha tis NOT inappropriate.  That is when some particualr scientist picks up on soething--a new approach or idea--that goes beyond the existing body of knowledge to the extent it simply doesn't fit the existingmodels at all.  But when that  happens, such scientists do not go around claiming "there's a liberal conspiracy," yada, yada, yada.  Instead they get to work doing the hard wrk of devising and testing their ideas.  And--more often than not, find out they were wrong. But when they do turn out to be right--they do it by providing solid evidence, not by making unsupported claims or demanding that junk science be accepted as evidence.

Hypotheticallly, a scientists could do hust this with global warming--in SOME respects.  No legitimate scientist is going to claim "global warming does not exist" or that it isn't man-made. thoose are proven facts.  But we do,in fact, have a challenge to the accepted paradigm right now--the idea of "global dimming."  here, a few scientists have suggested taht some pollutants (mainly particulate exaust from jet aircraft) may be blockingthe suns light to a degree, producing a small but measurable tendency for reduced temperatures.

But look at the difference with these scientists. First, they are not claiming they have proven teir case--they don't have enough evidence to do that (yet, anyway).  And they have pointed out that, if they are right, this does not "disprove" global warming--in fact the opposite: global dimming, if it proves to be valid, would have a "masking" effect and be slowing global warming--meaning that the global warming is actually stonger than previously thought.

But these scientists who are (legitimately) questining accepted models--are not trying to deny proven facts--they are trying to make our knowledge mor e comprehensive and complete.

Answer 2

When their paycheck is signed, "EXXON"

Answer 3

When you seek to get your answers from other people instead of reviewing the data yourself, then I suppose you can look to try to figure our who is more credible.  I personally would rather look at the available evidence.  You suggest that Singer said there isn't a link between smoking and cancer.  From what I have been able to find, what Singer said is that he was not convinced of the link between second hand smoke and cancer.  That is very different and it certainly was poorly understood and there are plenty of contradictory studies.   The link between CFCs and ozone hole is also not as well understood as you pretend.  Those are good leftists issues that some would like to use to brow beat others. It takes personal courage to stand up against political causes that parade as science.  What does it get him except to be trashed by the left at every opportunity.  Dana brought up acid rain.  That is an issue largely forgotten by the left.  It was dreamed up in Germany and like many scare scenarios, it had a ring of truth, but it was in fact another good example of politics parading as science.  It turned out that it was more hype than truth.  

Science is not politics.  Global warming, acid rain, second hand smoke, CFCs are more about leftists causes than science, even if there is a sprinkling of truth in each issue.

Answer 4

A scientist would only loose credibility in the eyes of people that actually follow science and read the literature.  Those outside of science, will pick and choose whatever "scientists" fits their ideological bent.  This is more prevalent now, with the advent of the Internet, where 2 minutes on google can find a "scientist" that agrees with virtually any position on any issue.

Answer 5

Politics vs. Science

Trust the data ...not the rhetoric.

remember...consensus=politics

consensus is not science.

Answer 6

A scientist only looses credibility when they no longer use data to arrive at a conclusion.  Science is not about consensus. Science is about fact.  No matter how many people believe in something, they cannot make it true.

Answer 7

At the exact moment they claim humans are responsible for global warming.

Answer 8

I would say a scientist loses credibility the moment he or she interprets data with a noticeable bias. Or when they change their conclusion because it isn't what their employer/government wants to hear. That just isn't science anymore.

Answer 9

These 3 scientists have long put politics above science, and for that I think they lost credibility 20 years ago.  When you start working for a right-wing political group like the George C. Marshall Institute, your scientific credibility immediately goes into question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._M...

I recall reading that at least one of them (Singer I think) also claimed there was no relationship between sulfur emissions and acid rain.

Basically they seem not to care what the scientific evidence shows and support whatever benefits the right-wing political groups.  It amazes me that any scientist can do this, but I guess there's always a few bad apples in every bunch.

It also amazes me that deniers like shapeshifter will place the conclusions of right-wing political groups like SPPI (Science and Public Policy Institute) over that of groups of scientists like the AGU.  And that they purposefully misrepresent the AGU's conclusions, which is that the Earth's climate is out of balance *and* warming, not just out of balance *because* it's warming.

Answer 10

A scientist loses credibility when their work is not accepted by the scientific community.

When a scientist publishes a paper, it goes through a peer review process.  The journal sends the work out to other scientists in the field, who then evaluate it and attempt to duplicate it.  If a scientist has too many papers rejected, he starts to lose credibility.

Answer 11

It is interesting that none of the global warming deniers who responded were capable of actually understanding what you were asking.

Yes, these pseudo-scientists have lost credibility. They lost it when they were paid to deny the link between smoking and cancer. They no longer had it when they were paid to deny the link between CFC and ozone depletion. Only a complete fool or industry lackey would claim to believe their paid lies about global warming.

The thing that people have to remember is that industry is not just paying scientists to deny global warming, they are also paying anonymous people to deny it all across the Internet.

These people hate America and hate our children and are willing to kill both, for a paycheck. One doesn't get more sleazy than that.

Don't take my word for it. Listen to the words of real scientists.

"A spokesman for the Royal Society, Britain's leading scientific academy, said: "At present there is a small minority which is seeking to deliberately confuse the public on the causes of climate change.

"They are often misrepresenting the science, when the reality is that the evidence is getting stronger every day.

"We have reached a point where a failure to take action to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions would be irresponsible and dangerous."

"

Answer 12

When people don't like what they have to say.

Once the majority of people have their mind set and someone comes along that says no wait a sec.

They are quick to brand him as out of touch.

This has been going on for sometime need a good example

Copernicus

Answer 13

When the UN money comes first.

Answer 14

A skeptic would not assume (as your question implies) that a scientist starts with credibility in the first place.  

Even a moderately skeptical person would be wary of:

- People who have had no recognizable connection with science research for the past 15+ years.

- People who have formed or joined lobbying organizations outside of the established scientific community whose activities revolve around agenda-based influence of public opinion and policy.  

- People who have accepted payments from political or industry organizations or companies such as ExxonMobil that have demonstrated a connection between their funding and the desired result that they want to promote.

- People who have no visible means of support except for funding from agenda-based non-scientific organizations.

- People who regularly participate in debates far outside of their area of expertise.

- Anyone with joint authorship with the type of people described above.  

Lobbying activities pay far more than scientific research.  

I'd be wary of anyone who appears to have left scientific research and taken a payoff in exchange for delivering desired results.

As Ken points out however, people with an overriding desire to cling to a certain position may hold everything supporting their position in high regard, regardless of the source or its credibility.  It is disingenuous to label those people skeptics, since they do not exercise any reasonable quantity of skepticism as a prerequisite to accepting information.

-----

Here's S. Fred Singer's CV posted to the Web site of his SEPP organization:

http://www.sepp.org/about%20sepp/bios/si...

Looks to me like Singer's scientific work peaked in the 50's.  He was involved with the oil industry in the 70s and 80s.  His work since the early 1990s seems to be focused on his SEPP advocacy organization, which has accepted funds from ExxonMobil.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfact...

-----

Wikipedia: Global warming controversy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warm...

Several skeptical scientists—Fred Singer, Fred Seitz and Patrick Michaels—have been linked to organizations funded by ExxonMobil and Philip Morris for the purpose of promoting global warming skepticism (see section: Risks of passive smoking). Similarly, groups employing global warming skeptics, such as the George C. Marshall Institute, have been criticized for their ties to fossil fuel companies.

On February 2, 2007, The Guardian stated that Kenneth Green, a Visiting Scholar with AEI, had sent letters to scientists in the UK and the U.S., offering US$10,000 plus travel expenses and other incidental payments in return for essays with the purpose of "highlight[ing] the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC process," specifically regarding the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

A furor was raised when it was revealed that the Intermountain Rural Electric Association (an energy cooperative that draws a significant portion of its electricity from coal-burning plants) donated $100,000 to Patrick and his group, New Hope Environmental Services, and solicited additional private donations from its members.

Answer 15

according to alarmists they are no longer credible when they question the theory

Answer 16

Scientists loose credibility when they reject the traditional peer review process and incorporate their own rules such as rejecting reviewers comments because only one paper supports their idea while accepting other comments supported by one paper AS LONG AS it supports the idea of AGW.  The reviewers didnt review every chapter.  They tried to make up a policy for the entire world to follow even though they didnt have reviewers from a lot of places in the world.  (This refers to the IPCC, forgot to mention)

I would say that is where they loose credibility.

Also, in the case of the American Geophysical Union, they ruined it in their first sentence of their paper by stating something implying they already had an agenda.  They said "the earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming."

SPPI:  "But if mere warming or cooling is a sign of being out of balance, one could truthfully say that earth's climate is almost always "out of balance," which suggests that its current condition is actually normal. "

Answer 17

The credibility of a a scientist does not depend upon being on the right side of a consensus.  Scientific credibility stems from basing your conclusions on all of the best experimental data available at the time (even if few others do).  The best experimental data is that which is independently reproduced by several different scientists.  A good scientist modifies his/her opinion as new evidence becomes available.  

A scientist that fakes data to serve commercial interests has no credibility whatsoever.  The present credibility of Patrick Michaels, Fed Singer and Fredrick Seitz is close to zero because they betrayed the scientific code of honesty by failing to base their conclusions about prior issues on all of the best experimental evidence available to them at the time.