the problem is how do you control for that. Excluding research based on your judgement of the character of the researches is a dark road which would lead to the total implosion of the common forum for sensible scientific debate. Just look at how the Creation “scientists” and even some of the industry-research-institute aligned scientists already refer to the top universities as “(extreme) left-wing”.

The only protection is to continue to refine the processes of science and scientific publication to be robust enough to make the buffeting of vested interests and preconception almost impotent. And I think that almost is the most we can hope for – or rather the best, which in this case is I suppose the least

“Why are “charlatans” of other sorts of other sorts not subjected to this though? We let Marxists publish total rot without anything like this venom. Have done for decades. Marxism has killed millions BTW, so it isn’t “harmless””

Choosing a social science philosophy as a comparison to biological science fact is a rather weak point, and a poor platform for a cheap shot against Marxism.

Killed millions? Are you confusing it with stalinism or maoism per chance? And for fair comparison should we be comparing deaths with those resulting from British Imperialism where we managed to wipe out more people than the Nazis could even dream off, or more recently, American Imperialism?

I’d also argue, since your a sceptic leaning towards ‘not convinced of global warming’ but concerned about economic activity, that we are faced with a choice regardless – oil/gas/coal are finite resources and will, pretty much guaranteed, become more expensive over time. The effort involved in finding and exploiting them (and corresponding research and development) would, potentially, contribute to economic growth as much as the alternative and should we stay on the ‘carbon’ path would become more and more significant proportion of our economy – but the exploited resource would continue to be finite and reducing – so the choice is this swap a chunk of our economy over to something that will continue to work in the long run OR don’t and allow a similar chunk to develop with a guarantee that it will fail at some point.

The words ‘sustainable development’ might come with alot of emotional baggage, but if you really think about it this is the root of my argument.

Why are “charlatans” of other sorts of other sorts not subjected to this though? We let Marxists publish total rot without anything like this venom. Have done for decades. Marxism has killed millions BTW, so it isn’t “harmless”.

Actually, why are people who do actual research and publish finding contrary to the approved view called “charlatans”?

What you are really saying is — I’ve made up MY mind, the debate is over.

What level of evidence would it take to convince the majority of current sceptics that global warming is a) real and b) significantly worsened by human activity?

It depends on the sceptic.

The hard-core ones who are opposed to any action on political grounds will never be persuaded. (Just as some eco-greenies will never budge on GM foods, no matter how much science is thrown at them.)

Most people who call themselves sceptics haven’t done any research at all. (Just as some AGW proponents haven’t either, in the sense of actually looking for evidence of the opposite, which is the heart of real scepticism. And science for that matter.)

Others, like me, are far more concerned about the deliberate panic being instigated about it, for political reasons, than the problem warrants. All these “it’s our last chance” doom-sayers. I watched the Club of Rome try that lark over 30 years ago.

I’m hesitant on the warming, and persuadable. But the need to immediately choke all economic growth as the only solution is too stupid for words.

Only part of this is true.

If somebody is offensive to us, for whatever reason, this does not affect the data that they have produced in any way. So yes the first part of the statment is true in so far as it goes. Provided of course, they don’t fall foul of the 2nd part of the sentance.

However, the second part; “Whose research is suspect” is, in itself, a warning that their results should, at the very least, be ripped apart down to the raw data and methodoloy used and re-examined from the ground up.

Dodgy research is dodgy research no matter who carries it out and of course the same applies to good research.

A truly horrible story in your link. And what is worse is that it is easy to imagine the same lawyer going for his next medical victim for failing to inform their patient that the PSA test might lead down a path of prostatic biopsies etc with no practical benefits in the end.

I’m with Will Shakespeare when it comes to some of our legal friends.

so what’s your agenda then?

Whether or not results from those with a strong source of bias should be ignored completely, I applaud the ingenuity of considering such a funding source as an effect modifier – perhaps this could also be done for other contentious fields?

Too funny. I thought we were to NEVER ignore the research of people who offend us or whose research is suspect.

Errr, yes… By instigating an open and honest debate that shows these charlatans for what they are before they get a toe hold in the press.

I don’t see your point.

i) I heard that many Nazi medical experiments were ignored, not because they were done by unethical people or for unethical reasons, but because the experiments themselves used unethical methodology. I find this an interesting area. If someone murders 40 people, and in the process finds out some useful information, should you use that information? One strong argument says ‘no’ because even if you punish the psycho who murdered 40 people, others might come along who decide that they’ll do unethical experiments and then take the punishment ‘for the good of humanity’. If you refuse to use the results, then you remove that justification.
This issue is, I believe, not relevant to the above smoking example though. I also like Abahachi’s point.

ii) Was looking at journals today and got some interesting Google Ads. Apparently looking at the contents page of a journal where they list ‘Numer 1′, ‘Number 2′, etc. means you’re interested in numerology.

picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/OxSJPoIFcwU2vVyNZrj1dw?feat=directlink

Be well all.

Perhaps @Thimble was referring to the prevalence of ‘killer cyclists on pavement’ stories that seem to populate the likes of the Daily Mail and GLR radio every week.

Truth is you’re as likely to be killed by a golf ball as you are by a cyclist on a pavement (about 2 or 3 per decade), whereas motor traffic kills 3000 people per year, including a large number of pedestrians on footpaths (about 40 each year).

Yes, these figures are many orders of magnitude removed from smoking fatalities, but that doesn’t mean the misreporting is in any way acceptable.