Scientific "Concensus"

In case you haven't been following the story, the email and files of some prominent climate researchers was hacked and posted to the web. The emails contained some interesting statements, which of course as being explained away as "of course we weren't manipulating data."

See, the problem here is guys, it looks like you were. As much as scientists want to believe they've come so far, they are no different than scientists throughout the ages who "knew" something to be true.

Is pumping CO2 and toxins in the air bad? Yes. Should we try and stop doing it? Yes.

Is there a true "scientific" concensus on it? Heck no. Dissenting voices aren't heard.* Or are laughed off as quacks because there is lots of money to be had in grants if you have the hot theory.

This isn't just in climatology. This is in evolutionary study, physics, lots of different areas. Dissenting voices are quashed.

The issue to me isn't if the data was being manipulated. It is more an issue of these scientists aren't doing their work with an open mind. Because if they are not, they don't have to manipulate the data, they'll just miss the stuff that doesn't fit unconsciously.

I look forward to seeing this develop.

Also, I'm not saying its a good thing that hackers broke in and stole it...but...dang, this sure is nice and interesting!

*Helps when you put the "n't" on the end of the word so the entire post makes sense...