*****************************************EXCERPT***************************************
A C of Adelaide says:
It may seem obvious but I have never seen it explicitly stated so I say it here. It seems to me that there are five completely independent ways to become a sceptic.
1/ Science A person can examine the science of AGW theory and become sceptical of the science.
2/ Predictions. A person can take the science purely at face value but become sceptical when the measured global temperatures can be seen to not match those predictions.
3/ Data sets. A person can become a sceptic by simply losing confidence in the global temperature data sets by noticing the uncertainties in the data collection and “corrections”
4/ Dirty Tricks A person could rationally ignore the science and ignore the temperature graphs and become sceptical solely on the basis of the known fraud, dirty tricks and bad faith of some of the main AGW crew. Lost of trust
5/ Money It would be totally rational to be sceptical of a group of scientists funded by (say) the tobacco industry and consider any of the out put possibly lacking independence. Similarly, it would be entirely rational to become sceptical of a group of scientists who are openly competing for grant money from pro-global warming funding bodies. One does not need to understand science to understand conflict of interest.
The science is the most difficult and demanding pathway so I think many people wouldn’t come at it directly from this route – which would explain the AGW frustration that no one is listening to their “science is settled” mantra anymore. There are so many easier routes by which they have lost credibility. (I note it may also explain why less educated people are less impressed by the “science is settled” mantra)
My own personal route to scepticism for example came first through pathway 4, through first doubts after the release of the Climategate emails, to outright scepticism after reading the Case Study 12 from D’Aleo and Watts (2010) “Hide this after Jim checks it” which you allude to. The idea that you can make undocumented changes to “raw” data and still call it “raw” was quite shocking.
I guess due to pathways 3, 4 and 5 this “hottest year ever” nonsense has lost traction.
One thing many people outside of science (and even within science) fail to understand about potential bias. Bias may exist even without any data faking whatsoever.
Research may yield results that are only part of a larger picture, and, indeed, looking like the opposite of the overall picture. Jokes about this are common with medical research.
If researchers know they will receive funding only if their results are favorable to one side, they will not choose research topics that could possibly yield a confounding result. Therefore, none of the studies are done that could refute the preconceived outcome.
On the other hand, it is my personal belief that this is not all that is going on with Dr. Hansen. He should be removed from his position and replaced by a scientist.