Journalist disclose their interests and their companies interests to avoid losing credibility this way.
You mean like researchers who get money to "confirm" AGW?
> Journalist disclose their interests
Oh really? Do you know how many NYT reporters are married to or involved with folks they cover? (Hint - the answer is not 0. The NYT's response when asked is that they've cleared things with their editor....)
Note 1: saying "climategate" doesn't constitute presenting evidence; pointing to something in the pilfered emails that says (e.g.) "Of course I have to fudge this because otherwise I'll lose my job" and that isn't clearly a joke would constitute presenting evidence.
Note 2: observing that very few people who get paid to do climate science are denying AGW doesn't constitute presenting evidence either. Very few people who get paid to do biology are denying evolution, but that isn't because they're paid to confirm evolution; it's because evolution is, in fact, correct, and studying enough biology to get paid for doing it usually leads people to realise this. So you'd need to rule out that sort of explanation in the case of climate science.
What do you think that rigging the peer-review process accomplished?
> it's because evolution is, in fact, correct, and studying enough biology to get paid for doing it usually leads people to realise this. So you'd need to rule out that sort of explanation in the case of climate science.
Are you asserting that AGW is as "settled" as evolution? If not, the analogy doesn't hold and neither does the conclusion that you'd like to impose.
Climate researchers outside of CRU are acknowledging that the thumb was on the scale. Is denying that really the hill that you want to defend?
In science, being a "good person" doesn't count as evidence. Neither does "the folks who disagree are bad people". AGW may turn out to be real (although that's looking unlikely), but it will take us much longer to find that out because "good people" behaved badly and did cargo cult science. Which reminds me - why do we consider them good people?
In addition to rigging peer review and trying to stack grant committees, it's pretty much SOP to add some blather about "consistent with AGW" to almost anything these days, in part because that's how the money flows. Of course, this isn't new. We saw the same thing with AI and "computers".
You're mistakenly assuming I'm taking a position on this particular topic.
If it's true that someone else has a stake in this or some other debate, then indeed they also have an obligation to reveal it.
The only thing I'm arguing is that anyone who has stake in a debate has an obligation to make that stake clear.
That's it.
That's a nice goal, but it's not going to happen.
Which reminds me - it's not clear that "a stake" has a useful definition. One would like it to correlate with bias, but most biases have nothing to do with money. In fact, it's the true believers who are the most dangerous in this respect.
Uh, I actually wasn't particular inclined against the line of argument present by the original post but this gets ugly...
