Peter Thiel has qualifications in philosophy and law. It is not clear to me why his views on the climate sciences should carry weight.

On the use of the word "science", do you see a difference between the colloquialism "climate science" and perhaps more formal "the climate sciences". There are clearly many components to the study of climate and the term climate science is a useful shortening of, or alternative to, the term "the climate sciences". Just as there are many parts in the study of natural science one of which is physical science (often referred to as the natural sciences and the physical sciences).

The only difference I see is for example when one hears that someone has a qualification in "climate science" as opposed to in "one of the climate sciences". In this case it seems very likely that said person has no traditional "science" qualification unless it is a second degree building on a degree in one of the "climate sciences".

I know for sceptics it is important to redefine words in ways that allows them to be used as hammers. But there is no milage in this deliberate misinterpretation of the use of these words. It just makes you look stupid. That won't stop people disagreeing with me here for the next week or so...

I had read the quote Richard but thanks for reminding us who said it.

Sadly Raff thinks ‘scientist’ is the beginning and end of organised thought. However there is intelligent life beyond the walls of academia and most of us recognise that clever people are quite capable of acting like anyone else. They can lie, cheat, make mistakes and exaggerate.

We are bombarded with spin. We see a washing powder ad and who fronts it? A person in a white coat and glasses. It tries to say ‘our product is created and tested by scientists so it can’t be less than perfect’. Do you fall for that? Some people do but while most people might be susceptible to thinking positively towards science you wouldn’t bet your fortune or your life on everything they have to say. Most people now take the emissions of scientists with a pinch of salt and the harder they try to convince you with spin rather than clear evidence, the more you question what they’re up to.

I’m sure that climate scientists are better than they come across, but in their determination to force belief in their work they’ve acted like con men. They insist that you’re the only one not to sign up. They tell you that there is a time limit to their offer. They get angry when you ask questions. They have no answers to the difficult questions but assure you that things will come good in the end. When things go wrong they’re first evasive and then start making excuses on the fly. They rely heavily on hiding any problems in the small print of long… very long documents that you just know they will use to wriggle out of responsibility if things go pear shaped. They present evidence from dodgy sources and meaningless graphs while at the same time dismissing evidence from other quarters. They bad mouth the competition. They operate in secrecy and fiercely oppose scrutiny. They use moral blackmail especially bringing in your fears for your children. Have I missed anything?

Trust them, they’re scientists. Ha, ha.

"the Troll is trying to derail the thread already", except I addressed the subject of the thread. How does your comment or that of Tiny relate to "Science is a tell"?

That's a fair summary, TinyCO2.

One of my hopes is that sensible publicly-funded science can be spared from being tarred with the same brush when the day of reckoning comes.

My advice to policy makers is that they should fund people and sciences that generally prefer to focus on finding solutions to known problems, not those with a solution who are guaranteed to find the problem they are looking for.

For those who understand what Peter Thiel was saying, my comment was strictly on topic. He was not trying to redefine the word 'scientist'. Scientist is just a job for a clever person. If you need to flash your credentials to win a debate your arguments suck. Climate scientists are very bad at debate to the point where they are looking positively dodgy. If they tried a bit harder they could move from being lumped with social and political science and join Scientology. Science and an 'ology, can't beat that.

"It is the argument (The "views" themselves) that counts, it is irrelevant who makes it"

So why did "The Blaze" say "PayPal Co-Founder Is Skeptical of Man-Made Global Warming for This Reason" and identify him (for everyone who has never heard of him) as "often considered one of the most influential people in Silicon Valley"? If it is what he says that matters they should say: "Man in California is Skeptical...". His trivial argument is worthless if expressed in that way, and we wouldn't be discussing it, that is why.

"what is the difference between "scientists say" and properly validated science"

The first is written by a reporter who probably knows little of relevance and the second is published research by the scientist in a recognised journal.

"in science it is very important that you clearly define your terms"

as it is in anti-science propaganda.

"Qn how do you define "Climate Change " ?"

How does that relate to "science is a tell"? And why should my definition be of any relevance?

It's like this in all forms of communication, particularly in the native English speaking world. In order to obfuscate the fact that something or someone doesn't necessarily agree with what you are saying quote it/then and quickly move on. I agree with Nick being a recent example.

Notice also in the quote the word often is used, implying not always.

It is probably a good thing that someone educated in a non-scientific field (B.A. in Philosophy from Stanford) highlights this kind of deception. The statement "the science says/agrees" should always be answered with show me and prove it. Basically that's all that has been said. In a field based entirely on the predictions of models built to prove a single theory then what was said is perfectly valid.

Furthermore he raised this very relevant point

Thiel said there are countless instances where excessive government intervention and regulation stifled growth or led to economic bubbles.

Technology has been “very lightly regulated” in recent decades, and the world has seen extraordinary advances in the field, he said. But almost every other industry has been heavily regulated, and as a result, has seen very little growth.

“If you’re trying to develop a new drug, that costs you a billion dollars to get through the FDA,” Thiel remarked. “If you want to start a software company, you can get started with maybe $100,000.”

Thiel said America “could be curing cancer,” but because the government has made the cost of developing medicine so high, people are dedicating their time and energy to the tech industry instead.

I don't think he is wrong there either.

I'm right on topic. My first post addressed the use of "science" in a subject name.

On the use of the word "science", do you see a difference between the colloquialism "climate science" and perhaps more formal "the climate sciences". There are clearly many components to the study of climate and the term climate science is a useful shortening of, or alternative to, the term "the climate sciences". Just as there are many parts in the study of natural science one of which is physical science (often referred to as the natural sciences and the physical sciences)

Thiel's statement says more about his "libertarian" political views than any insight he might have into science and how science works.

I thought that "Science is a tell" was the subject of the thread. Silly me, the subject was Richard Drake all along. I see now why I was considered off topic (although the same goes for everyone else, I think) :-)

But yes, I'm interested. Since the idea that "science is a tell" is demolished by simply considering the names "natural science" and "physical science", please explain your new subject: presumption.

I now have no idea what this thread is about, but you might be interested in disagreement hierarchies.

Oh oh - he's stamping his feet.