3 ms·

> Well, this is media reporting rather than scientific inquiry. The first step of the scientific method is observing and questioning reality. Whether this acti

> Well, this is media reporting rather than scientific inquiry. The first step of the scientific method is observing and questioning reality. Whether this action is performed by somebody with "researcher" in their job title or not doesn't change that. > There certainly are ethical limits to what can be published if it goes against fact or scientific consensus. It was also scientific fact at one time that the Earth was the center of the universe, or that washing your hands before surgery was pointless. How do we know when it becomes ok to question fact or scientific consensus or not? > the current scientific consensus that the Earth is warming due to human activity is so strong For the sake of argument, if we take that statement as an iron-clad fact, we're still left with a wide range of outcomes within the reality of climate change. 1) How much is earth warming? 2) What level of harm would that cause? Might some areas of the globe benefit while others are harmed? 3) What if the proposed solutions to climate change cause more problems for humans than benefits? Is there not room to disagree with many proposed climate change solutions without being labeled as anti-scientific? > And anyway, the question I was considering was "is there an argument that the DailySceptic is harmful". Since you seem to be focusing on utilitarian outcomes, have you even considered the ways in that skepticism of what you're told to believe might perform a social good?

henearkr 4y ago
The one with "researcher" title is one of those who spent most of their life learning about the subject, comparing and simulating different theories, and weighing the odds using statistical models, which by the way is also why they are aware of the uncertainty of their conclusions. So, when those people gather and are in a consensus about a specific question, it means a lot. Whereas when a lay person without such title or background questions the consensus, it really means little. A great way to be helpful to Humanity, for the Daily Sceptic, would have been to take important things brought by researchers on, say, AGW, and make an effort to transform it in a format more easily understandable to the public. In place of that, they pick articles bearing ultra-minority opinions against the consensuses, and they propulse them to the rank of "just another opinion in a controversial problem", although the problem is not at all controversial, it's just that there always exist people who say anything.
n4r9 4y ago
> How do we know when it becomes ok to question fact or scientific consensus or not? I mean, the straightforward answer to this is "when there is a high degree of confidence that the claims are harmful, incorrect, politically motivated, and reported in the media rather than scientific publication". At some point we have to draw an epistemological line and say we're sure about this, and we're sure what you're saying would cause suffering. The fact that humanity has been wrong in the past doesn't mean we should stop trying to prevent harm. > Is there not room to disagree with many proposed climate change solutions without being labeled as anti-scientific? There is, but that's not all that this website is doing. A very quick search brings up two articles where it publicises very fringe claims by people who are not climate scientists: https://dailysceptic.org/2022/09/14/climate-emergency-not-supported-by-data-say-four-leading-italian-scientists/ https://dailysceptic.org/2022/09/14/climate-emergency-not-su... https://dailysceptic.org/2022/06/24/climate-scientist-says-humans-cause-less-than-0-05c-of-global-warming-and-warns-of-anarchy-from-delusional-net-zero-policies/ https://dailysceptic.org/2022/06/24/climate-scientist-says-h... The second of these is particularly bizarre. The title actually says "climate scientist" and in the slightly more measured footnote calls him an "atmospheric scientist". It neglects to point out that he is a retired researcher in laser engineering who has apparently conducted his own investigations - neither published nor peer reviewed as far as I can tell - http://hharde.de/#xl_xr_page_index http://hharde.de/#xl_xr_page_index . This is very typical of presenting a false balance in order to push an agenda.

henearkr 4y ago

The one with "researcher" title is one of those who spent most of their life learning about the subject, comparing and simulating different theories, and weighing the odds using statistical models, which by the way is also why they are aware of the uncertainty of their conclusions. So, when those people gather and are in a consensus about a specific question, it means a lot. Whereas when a lay person without such title or background questions the consensus, it really means little. A great way to be helpful to Humanity, for the Daily Sceptic, would have been to take important things brought by researchers on, say, AGW, and make an effort to transform it in a format more easily understandable to the public. In place of that, they pick articles bearing ultra-minority opinions against the consensuses, and they propulse them to the rank of "just another opinion in a controversial problem", although the problem is not at all controversial, it's just that there always exist people who say anything.

n4r9 4y ago

> How do we know when it becomes ok to question fact or scientific consensus or not? I mean, the straightforward answer to this is "when there is a high degree of confidence that the claims are harmful, incorrect, politically motivated, and reported in the media rather than scientific publication". At some point we have to draw an epistemological line and say we're sure about this, and we're sure what you're saying would cause suffering. The fact that humanity has been wrong in the past doesn't mean we should stop trying to prevent harm. > Is there not room to disagree with many proposed climate change solutions without being labeled as anti-scientific? There is, but that's not all that this website is doing. A very quick search brings up two articles where it publicises very fringe claims by people who are not climate scientists: https://dailysceptic.org/2022/09/14/climate-emergency-not-supported-by-data-say-four-leading-italian-scientists/ https://dailysceptic.org/2022/09/14/climate-emergency-not-su... https://dailysceptic.org/2022/06/24/climate-scientist-says-humans-cause-less-than-0-05c-of-global-warming-and-warns-of-anarchy-from-delusional-net-zero-policies/ https://dailysceptic.org/2022/06/24/climate-scientist-says-h... The second of these is particularly bizarre. The title actually says "climate scientist" and in the slightly more measured footnote calls him an "atmospheric scientist". It neglects to point out that he is a retired researcher in laser engineering who has apparently conducted his own investigations - neither published nor peer reviewed as far as I can tell - http://hharde.de/#xl_xr_page_index http://hharde.de/#xl_xr_page_index . This is very typical of presenting a false balance in order to push an agenda.