4 ms·

> climate scientists have been too quick to claim the credibility of Science when their work does not measure up to that standard What the fuck are you talking

> climate scientists have been too quick to claim the credibility of Science when their work does not measure up to that standard What the fuck are you talking about? Observations and models are repeated and challenged far more in climate science than most other fields. It is a good example of science working exactly as it should. I'm not sure where you think climate science has gone astray but considering how expensive and difficult controlled experiments in climate science are, I think climate science does an amazingly good job. To clarify: yes, there are lots of bad papers in climate science (see Sturgeon's Law) but science does not require every paper to be accurate (in fact, you need a few extremist ideas to try to shake things up). Science requires rigorous retesting of theories to narrow the target and climate science is one field where that's happening all the time. Climate science's continuous observations does a pretty good job at sidelining inaccurate papers within a couple years (a quick turnaround all things considered). Climate science's problem is non scientists misrepresenting, misinterpreting and misunderstanding. The science itself is exactly what you'd want for every scientific field.

ISL 13y ago
> Observations and models are repeated and challenged far more in climate science than any other field. That may be an overstatement; see the Standard Model of physics.
- gilgoomesh 13y ago
  You're right, it was overstatement. I've corrected to "most other fields".
pdonis 13y ago
Observations and models are repeated and challenged far more in climate science than most other fields. You're kidding, right? Please show your work. [Edit: I saw your correction, and have adjusted my quote above, but my response is still the same: please show your work.] science does not require every paper to be accurate (in fact, you need a few extremist ideas to try to shake things up). I quite agree, and I wasn't trying to claim that all, or even most, papers published in other fields are accurate. Climate science's problem is non scientists misrepresenting, misinterpreting and misunderstanding. The science itself is exactly what you'd want for every scientific field. I disagree, but I doubt we're going to resolve the question here.

ISL 13y ago

> Observations and models are repeated and challenged far more in climate science than any other field. That may be an overstatement; see the Standard Model of physics.

gilgoomesh 13y ago
You're right, it was overstatement. I've corrected to "most other fields".

pdonis 13y ago

Observations and models are repeated and challenged far more in climate science than most other fields. You're kidding, right? Please show your work. [Edit: I saw your correction, and have adjusted my quote above, but my response is still the same: please show your work.] science does not require every paper to be accurate (in fact, you need a few extremist ideas to try to shake things up). I quite agree, and I wasn't trying to claim that all, or even most, papers published in other fields are accurate. Climate science's problem is non scientists misrepresenting, misinterpreting and misunderstanding. The science itself is exactly what you'd want for every scientific field. I disagree, but I doubt we're going to resolve the question here.