" ... Thousands of scientists and other experts volunteer their time with the IPCC to issue joint pronouncements every five or six years about one of the most complex scientific fields. The group, established by the U.N. Environment Program and the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, is administered by a paid staff of only a few dozen people and doesn't do any scientific research itself; its job is to assess work done by others, providing information for policy makers. ... "

I don't think it matters to people who "think" climate science is accurate on anything.

The most glaring mistake in any report is the claim that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035. That claim wasn't based on any peer-reviewed scientific paper, but on a decade-old interview given by an Indian glacier expert. Some within the IPCC suggest the mistake may be a typo traced back to a 1996 U.N.-sponsored study―which wasn't peer-reviewed. These scientific dolts have enough of a "hard time" figuring out what to "peer-review" as it is. Do you actually think they know anything about what guides temperature (... or even the climate?)?

Climate Clowns maybe?

Honesty is a virtue. The strange thing about honesty is that we do not seem to see even the simplest aspect, telling the truth when it is owed, as a duty. People who would be horrified at hurting anyone will trim, twist, exaggerate and lie at the drop of a hat, especially when it advances their ideological agenda, and will not feel they have done much wrong at all. Worse, they will anathematise those who utter inconvenient truth and feel highly righteous in doing so.

Science can be pure enquiry but the questions it seeks to answer are often those with significant practical import. The reason we subsidise science is because of the benefits it promises. Getting the benefits depends on scientists finding out and telling us the truth. From this point of view, then, honesty is a prime virtue of science and to be honest is a stringent duty owed to us all by scientists. It is unclear to what extent scientists feel properly bound by this duty.

First of all, it has come to light that for many years many disciplines have promulgated fraudulent research without noticing it. There have been shocking high profile cases such as Marc Hauser, but anyone who has attended to the Retraction Watch blog will see that there is a steady stream of such blatant dishonesty in science. Recently we have Stapel promoting his left wing prejudices by making up stuff to prove that failure can make you happier than success and untidiness promotes stereotyping and discrimination. Secondly, there have been equally shocking ideologically based witch-hunts, such as that perpetrated by the Marxist Leon Kamin and those we see pursued today over environmental issues. Thirdly, there are the ostensibly milder cases of trimming and twisting. This category may be where we should be most concerned since it exploits the rules by conforming whilst misleading. Consider all those pharmaceutical results where the positive trials get published and the negative trials left on the shelf. Consider also those experiments where researchers keep gathering data until they get a statistically significant result and then stop.

Depends. The science community honesty. Working scientist degrees. I don't trust Government scientists.

*Also unfortunatly there is the pop knowledge. Something gets pushed into the general public this gains popularity then it is added to the educational system producing scientists who believe this crap further the support in the scientific community.

*Example of pop knowledge "Milk is good for you" Yes it has heaps of calcium but never mind that it's full of lactose and that after 8 months old lactase is reduced to about 20%. Meaning the body can't break it down correctly, it makes the blood acidic. To fix this the bone leech minerals like calcium to equal out the pH levels. Therefore when you drink milk you are actually taking calcium out of your bones.

Also if your a global warmist support you may not want to hear this but scientist have understand ice core data and it's importance for decades. Global warming support is only new. The scientific community is actually very split by it. However over the years of it being introduce to the educational system the support has grown. Qualified environmental scientist.

Honestly there are different degrees of honesty and there are different honorary degrees. There are 6 degrees of warming, 6 degrees in climate science with six degrees of separation. Sorry, I'm caught was is going around and have 101 degrees of fever and that is honest. Clearly without honesty, a degree is worthless or worse than worthless because it provides the color of authority. I think that virus is attacking my grey matter.

Degrees are not important, scientific competence is. Unfortunately deniers prove time and time again that you can be BOTH a liar and scientifically incompetent--and typically they don't have degrees either.

For an excellent example of a denier lying AND showing his scientific incompetence, see the updates to this question:

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index...

EDIT: Virtually everything you say about Hansen in your other question is a lie. I really don't understand what sort of morals you have that tell you that lying--repeatedly--is ok. Don't you feel any compunction to be honest? Do you also cheat on your wife, lie on your tax return, shoplift from stores? I can understand someone having an honest disagreement about global warming, but I just don't get the idea that you can lie about it and others no matter what your stance is.

Honesty of course, science is all about presenting evidence that is supported and auditable (critiqued).

Edit: Your additional comments are not honest, and therefore do nothing to support your argument. You should have left your question as it was originally and not added the BS that follows.

Degrees. Yes, I know that this bucks the trend and I won't weasel out by saying that both are important (they are). Honesty is fine but it doesn't make breakthroughs in science. At least someone who actually earned a degree has the tools to make progress in science.

honesty. In climate science, dishonesty to push a political agenda seems to be a higher priority.

They are both important, also both are compatible with each other. Science is self correcting so both the honest fool and the degreed charlatan will be found out and their contributions rejected.

They then talk to each other; that's how denial is born!

I know of no time in human history where ignorance was better than knowledge.

-- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Wrong category. Try mental health.

The first requirement would be basic intelligence but denialists like you are completely lacking

Stupid question - unless you happen to be a scientifically illiterate liar?