5 ms·

> The intelligent design movement has made a whole documentary film about their systematic exclusion from the scientific process, for pete's sake! And so on wi

> The intelligent design movement has made a whole documentary film about their systematic exclusion from the scientific process, for pete's sake! And so on with Astrology, Alchemy, and the Humours theory of medicine. These things are not science and do not deserve the dignity and resources of scientific consideration. ID is an unverifiable postulation (with no explanatory power) about the origins of the universe, whereas the IPCC kerfuffle is all about scientists wanting to do science, review the data, etc.

crux_ 17y ago
Thank you for the opportunity to (re-)make my point. Think if someone had said these exact words about climate sceptics: "These things are not science and do not deserve the dignity and resources of scientific consideration." Outrageous, unscientific arrogance. If you believe the sceptics have a point. But if you don't, it's completely justified (although politically unwise to say out loud).
- Nwallins 17y ago
  In my mind, the question is not whether the skeptics have a point -- it's whether they are doing science. We are presuming that the IPCC is doing science and that the skeptics are doing science. The skeptics may be wrong, and they may not have a point, but they are doing science. Drawing an analogy to evolution skeptics of the ID variety confounds the issue, because there is no presumption of science being done by the skeptics. I suggest you choose a more faithful analogy. EDIT, in consideration of > "These things are not science and do not deserve the dignity and resources of scientific consideration." That is a bold claim by anti-skeptics, and the burden of proof is on them. Claiming that ID is not science is not so bold, and I can back that up if you really need such.
  - crux_ 17y ago
    > The skeptics may be wrong, and they may not have a point, but they are doing science. If they were really doing science, you'd think they could get something published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal instead of just blogging, wouldn't you? ;) (Aaaand we've come full circle!)
    - stonemetal 17y ago
      Publishing has nothing to do with weather or not they are doing science. It has to do with the methodology they employ.
    - Nwallins 17y ago
      OK, so we are down to the crux of the issue. ;) The claim, then, is that the skeptics are not doing science. That is easily refutable, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_McIntyre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_McIntyre and http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/13/centre-of-the-storm/print/ http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/13/centre-of-the-storm/print... Thus, in contrast to evolution skeptics of the ID variety, climate skeptics give much more credence to the idea that the target of their skepticism is flawed at best, and doing bad science at worst.
      - crux_ 17y ago
        > The claim, then, is that the skeptics are not doing science. That is easily refutable Phil Jones doesn't think it's so easily refutable, does he? It's the only non-conspiracy-theory explanation of the tone of the email leaks, and makes a ton of sense. [[ Sidebar: Personally I'm not so sure sceptics are "doing science" either. They don't seem to do much hypotheses forming, nor experimentation, nor evidence gathering... They are only pointing out potential flaws in the work of those who are actually doing the full spectrum of activity. Absolutely: There is real scientific value in that. However, when you couple it with the fact that the vast majority of their efforts are aimed at the court of public opinion and not a scientific dialogue with other scientists, it starts to smell fishy to me. ]] All of that aside: your entire point above was that you find the sceptics plausible -- that's fine, but realize that my point in posting the 'thought experiment' is that your interpretation of mainstream climate science as a horrible scandal rests entirely on your judgement of McIntyre etc as legitimate in the first place.

crux_ 17y ago

Thank you for the opportunity to (re-)make my point. Think if someone had said these exact words about climate sceptics: "These things are not science and do not deserve the dignity and resources of scientific consideration." Outrageous, unscientific arrogance. If you believe the sceptics have a point. But if you don't, it's completely justified (although politically unwise to say out loud).

Nwallins 17y ago
In my mind, the question is not whether the skeptics have a point -- it's whether they are doing science. We are presuming that the IPCC is doing science and that the skeptics are doing science. The skeptics may be wrong, and they may not have a point, but they are doing science. Drawing an analogy to evolution skeptics of the ID variety confounds the issue, because there is no presumption of science being done by the skeptics. I suggest you choose a more faithful analogy. EDIT, in consideration of > "These things are not science and do not deserve the dignity and resources of scientific consideration." That is a bold claim by anti-skeptics, and the burden of proof is on them. Claiming that ID is not science is not so bold, and I can back that up if you really need such.
- crux_ 17y ago
  > The skeptics may be wrong, and they may not have a point, but they are doing science. If they were really doing science, you'd think they could get something published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal instead of just blogging, wouldn't you? ;) (Aaaand we've come full circle!)
  - stonemetal 17y ago
    Publishing has nothing to do with weather or not they are doing science. It has to do with the methodology they employ.
  - Nwallins 17y ago
    OK, so we are down to the crux of the issue. ;) The claim, then, is that the skeptics are not doing science. That is easily refutable, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_McIntyre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_McIntyre and http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/13/centre-of-the-storm/print/ http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/13/centre-of-the-storm/print... Thus, in contrast to evolution skeptics of the ID variety, climate skeptics give much more credence to the idea that the target of their skepticism is flawed at best, and doing bad science at worst.
    - crux_ 17y ago
      > The claim, then, is that the skeptics are not doing science. That is easily refutable Phil Jones doesn't think it's so easily refutable, does he? It's the only non-conspiracy-theory explanation of the tone of the email leaks, and makes a ton of sense. [[ Sidebar: Personally I'm not so sure sceptics are "doing science" either. They don't seem to do much hypotheses forming, nor experimentation, nor evidence gathering... They are only pointing out potential flaws in the work of those who are actually doing the full spectrum of activity. Absolutely: There is real scientific value in that. However, when you couple it with the fact that the vast majority of their efforts are aimed at the court of public opinion and not a scientific dialogue with other scientists, it starts to smell fishy to me. ]] All of that aside: your entire point above was that you find the sceptics plausible -- that's fine, but realize that my point in posting the 'thought experiment' is that your interpretation of mainstream climate science as a horrible scandal rests entirely on your judgement of McIntyre etc as legitimate in the first place.