3 ms·

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

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.