Are Climate Scientists "Liberals"?

The uninformed AGW doubters define the word "liberal" as anyone who analyzes the scientific evidence of AGW and comes to a different conclusion than Dr. Rush Limbaugh (their hero).

It's ridiculous to try to generalize a statement about scientists being liberal or conservative. The people suggesting climate scientists are liberal, do so without any valid evidence at all (kind of like the way the deny AGW is real).

A degree. Climatology is a real science. You know climatologists aren't only experts in global warming, there are other aspects of climate... But I don't expect a "simple redneck Republican" to see past the propaganda topic :-). Meteorologist and climatologist are both concentrations of Atmospheric Science. Since they are concentrations of the same broader topic, they contain a lot of the same subject focus. They differ, however, in the specifics. Especially when you get past the undergrad. So a Meteorologist wouldn't have as much credibility in climate change as a climatologist, because meteorology concentrates on weather patterns more than overall climate. But they would have more credibility than say a Biologist, or Chemist.. Both sciences as well, but not concentrated under atmospheric science...

Most universities are well know for indoctrinating young influential students to the liberal side of the political scales. Why should scientists be any different. They spend four to eight or more years with liberal professors as their mentors.

That being said, I think government grants and other funding is a major reason why scientific organizations, not scientists, go along with the CO2 climate driver theory.

I think this quote is quite telling that most alarmists have an agenda:

“With the publication of the article in Science [in 1995], I

gained significant credibility in the community of scientists

working on climate change. They thought I was one of

them, someone who would pervert science in the service of

social and political causes. So one of them let his guard

down. A major person working in the area of climate

change and global warming sent me an astonishing email

that said “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm

Period.”

Source: Presentation by S McIntyre At Conference Stockholm Sweden, September 9 2006

The fact that the hockey stick was universally accepted in the climate science community is also another indication of a politically driven scientific community. Regardless as the whether or not the hockey stick is valid, in science when a new theory is introduced it must pass through a vigorous test of examinations before it is accepted. Why didn't that happen with Mann's study?

I would hope that when a scientist approaches his/her work they do it in an objective manner. We all have our personal biases but a good scientist will make an effort to prevent them from creeping into their inquiry. Unfortunately the search for funding sometimes requires an investigator to ignore the obvious to ensure the cash comes in.

You can sometimes root out the latter when an investigator spends an inordinate amount of time criticizing others rather than doing basic research. When a researcher is in the difficult position of needing to go against the grain of evidence they will commonly do a lot of name calling outside of the arena of their professional organizations.

Scientists who understand global ecology advocate for the precautionary principle and are therefore conservative on the environment.

Lay people ignorant of science are reckless when it comes to the environment.

What was the question again?

Oh.

Why do people conflate politics with science?

Because the human mind must invent a reason for things it doesn't understand.

Science tells me what I am doing is wrong. This cannot be true. Therefore, there must be a political agenda behind what the scientists are doing.

One step... one twirl... ...spin out of control.

When I was getting my PhD in Chemistry, the politics of my fellow PhD candidates was pretty well split down the middle with an equal amount of conservatives and liberals. My adviser was very conservative. The whole idea that universities turn everybody into a liberal is pure fiction.

since those that join the religious group of AGW are employed by the government and must rely on it because they can not function in a free market, that would properly define them as at least quasi socialist. Sounds like they are liberal to me.

Only Dana would take the word of a flaming liberal as a conservative. Hansen is a liberal. Lots of liberals consider themselves moderate. It doesnt' make them any less liberal. Not all climate scientists are liberals but I would bet that the vast majority of alarmists are.

Not universally...but their employers tend to be. It's never a good idea to cross the boss unless you're independently wealthy and/or looking for a career change.