What it sounds like when a real scientist talks

As opposed, that is, to some cult-member babbling about how "the science is settled" on the basis of computer models that consistently fail to produce accurate predictions.

Michio Kaku (HT: Insty) on the news that an experiment at CERN might -- emphasis on might -- have disproved Einstein's declaration that nothing can move faster than the speed of light:

Reputations may rise and fall. But in the end, this is a victory for science. No theory is carved in stone. Science is merciless when it comes to testing all theories over and over, at any time, in any place. Unlike religion or politics, science is ultimately decided by experiments, done repeatedly in every form. There are no sacred cows. In science, 100 authorities count for nothing. Experiment counts for everything.

Except for global warming, of course. If you doubt THAT, you might as well doubt the Holocaust. Because the scientific consensus is that the science is settled. After all, the IPCC says so, and who could possibly doubt the competency or intellectual integrity of an arm of the United Nations? You ignorant redneck climate-change denier, you. Shut up in the presence of your intellectual superiors. I mean, you probably don't even know what hoi polloi means; how dare you presume to have your own opinion about Matters of Science?

Well, sarcasm is rarely attractive; so I'll turn it off. But my serious point is this: it is one thing to be opposed to science. It is another thing entirely to doubt soi-disantes Scientists. The one is a methodology and a mindset of humility and intellectual integrity and a rigorous approach to the investigation of material causality and a deep distrust of the subconscious motives even of people who seem to themselves to be honest and impartial, and it is impossible for anybody to have a greater respect for everything that an Oxford don of 1910 would have meant by the term "science" than I have. The other is a self-anointed, credential-based priesthood. The more respect you have for science, the less respect you can have for what presents itself today as the Scientific Community. I just try to imagine what Richard Feinman would say to the Al Gores of the world who appear seriously to believe that "peer-reviewed article" and "independently reproducible experimental result" are interchangeable...[smiles while relishing the imaginary scene] wow, would that ever be a fun tongue-lashing to listen in on.