Such statements also come out of biologists discussing evolution. This is not, however, evidence that they aren't really doing science. Instead it is evidence that they've been burned out explaining basics over and over again to Creationists and want to get on with their lives.
However some do take the energy out for those explanations. One of the results of their energy is http://www.talkorigins.org/.
Hopefully some day someone will take the energy to do the same with climate science. Because as much as there is a lot of politics there, there is some real science there as well.
> Such statements also come out of biologists discussing evolution.
A lot of my friends are scientists, including in a couple biochemists and some other people that do more or less serious research into topics like that. In my experience, you're off on how they deal with stupid people and stupid arguments - instead of "get out of biology" and moving on with their lives, they tend to address and correct errors, debate if necessary, or at least point the person towards a relevant piece that explains things and take new criticisms and arguments and address them if necessary.
The scientists I know always been open to me saying stupid things (and occasionally not stupid things) and correcting me if I'm wrong, or exploring together if I might not be wrong. Good biologists don't say, "Get out of biology".
> Hopefully some day someone will take the energy to do the same with climate science.
Oh, hah, I honestly responded quickly and missed the climate science analogy originally. If you wanted to make an apologia for climate science, then I do understand why you'd want to draw a biology:evolution:creationism to climate science:global warming:deniers parallel.
I was responding to the "want to get on with their lives" part as being wrong based on my experience, as scientists are usually rather encouraging and tolerant of dissent. Climate science is not so much interested in people and data which disagree with them, which is a pretty big problem.
I'm married to a biology PhD, and at one point spent a couple of years watching people, including biologists, deal with a constant stream of Creationists in places like talk.origins.
My experience is that if you're a personal friend, you get more serious conversation. If you're someone they know but not so closely, they'll have the argument if pushed but don't feel the need to actively educate. And if you're a random person spouting on the Internet, it isn't worth their time to get involved. If pushed to be involved, they don't feel the need to be pleasant about it.
After spending time myself explaining the same thing over and over again, I've come to feel the same way. I've also come to realize that there are plenty of smart people who do not wish to be educated. Including in my direct personal experience, at least one PhD in mathematics and another in molecular biology.
Based on this experience I have some sympathy for the position of climate scientists. You spend your life climbing around glaciers in Greenland, and you don't really feel like spending the rest of it convincing people who don't want to bother learning the basics about climate.
> Such statements also come out of biologists discussing evolution
This is only the case when the opposing person is pretending to be a scientist but is really a creationist. Scientists tend to make arguments based upon facts and experiments. They start to get really mad when people don't follow the rules and start bringing non-scientific "evidence" into the argument.
There is plenty of things up for debate about how evolution works, but these are the details of the theory. Due to overwhelming evidence, the debate on if is over, however the debate on how is very much alive.
However some do take the energy out for those explanations. One of the results of their energy is http://www.talkorigins.org/.
Hopefully some day someone will take the energy to do the same with climate science. Because as much as there is a lot of politics there, there is some real science there as well.