Add new comment

And the 'Climategate' reference is a good reminder to me that explicit "collaboration" is more plausible than I usually give it credit for.
I vaguely remember an interesting discovery by mainstream researchers that would pertain to Intelligent Design ....  in biology or physics, forget which, and a professor's hacked email saying, "Keep this out of your text because the creationists will get ahold of it."  The point isn't that a million emails then circulate, informing everybody of The Plan -- the point is that the university profs tend to be "in" on this unwritten rule.  
Textbook EDITORS, like Wikipedia editors, tend to be monolithic in their POV also.
.........
I went to college.  I personally remember the anthropologist profs arguing like lawyers that fossil evidence should persuade any reasonable person that hominids moved in the classic direction.  Virtually every word they said was in an attempt to persuade, not inform.  I was on their side at the time, and was thinking, "Who is on the other side of this argument?!" that the whole class should be a defense-attorney presentation.
.........
Very provocative, your idea that scientists don't pursue skeptical inquiry - because "all" of them "know" that climate modeling is dubious science.  That has the ring of truth to me, though I'm not in a position to verify it.  Thanks for the cogent and specific detail points in support.
Just an outstanding post.  :: golfclap ::