4 ms·
Based on my interpretation, using that logic as a reason to withhold the data probably furthers the exclusionary/isolationist phenomenon that exists in modern a
by drewmol 9y ago
Based on my interpretation, using that logic as a reason to withhold the data probably furthers the exclusionary/isolationist phenomenon that exists in modern academia already.
Certainly people who are formally accredited to 'correctly interpret this data' are quantifiable, but without providing it to the non-credentialed as well we shouldn't draw statistical claims based on their ability to correctly analyze something they've been denied access to, or suppose their intentions as a reason to exclude access.
- reitanqild 9y agoExample: me I pride myself with being able to change my mind even on topics that I have been sure about since I was a kid. (Example: laws against drugs, -based on thoughful opinions by people here and possibly elsewhere I now think we would be better of if certain drugs were decriminalized.) On certain topics however like AGW or not there is still just a shouting match: flagging, downvoting, accusations ("sceptism is just another word for denier", "anyone who disagree is a paid shill", "questions are never real, it is the YAQ tactic") Luckily I've met some more reasonable folks at work that kindly answered my questions about data -with data- instead of flaming me. You see, people like me want data like metric tons of CO2 by source - not data about how many scientists have agreed.
- pjc50 9y ago> metric tons of CO2 by source Surprisingly hard to measure without controversy. You can take point measurements of atmospheric content and ocean cooncentration, but all sorts of things like melting permafrost outgassing have to be estimated.