> You're implying that the only reasonable reason to doubt data is contradicting data. No. I'm implying that the only reasonable reason to doubt massive amount

> You're implying that the only reasonable reason to doubt data is contradicting data. No. I'm implying that the only reasonable reason to doubt massive amounts of data that has been, and is being, actively studied by thousands upon thousands of experts for decades, is contradicting data. Perhaps more importantly, I'm implying that armchairing an opinion on the matter carries zero weight. > Which is what I'm objecting to, since funding and media representation in science certainly isn't favourable to this way of thinking. Science's very imperfect funding structures do indeed cause worthwhile endeavours to go unexplored. That's sad. But irrelevant here, as it does not invalidate the conclusions from endeavours that are funded. > Sometimes, "I'm not sure" or "I don't know" is wiser than "nothing better to challenge it". Absolutely! For example when evidence is scant and a problem is under-studied. My problem is that you and OP seem to leap from that fact to that always being true. Climate change is not such a case, and unless you have large amounts of contradictive data, you're an idiot for saying "I don't know". And if you did have vast amounts of contradicting data, you'd bring it! > a-french-anon 24 minutes ago | parent | context | flag | on: Is Europe headed towards a new Ice Age as ocean cu... You're implying that the only reasonable reason to doubt data is contradicting data. Which is what I'm objecting to, since funding and media representation in science certainly isn't favourable to this way of thinking. Sometimes, "I'm not sure" or "I don't know" is wiser than "nothing better to challenge it". > The crux of the problem in your post is the use of the words "consensus" and "established" when these can easily be manufactured No. You clearly have zero clue how science works. > (and the infamous climategate shows such social engineering, even without debating the scientific truth or untruth of the matter). ?!