> What is the best way to deal with skeptics of generally accepted ideas? As a creator of a "NoSQL" database (CouchDB), I think I understand the skeptics that

> What is the best way to deal with skeptics of generally accepted ideas? As a creator of a "NoSQL" database (CouchDB), I think I understand the skeptics that climate researchers must deal with, and how it's difficult. In our case, there are a great deal of skeptics who deny there are any advantages to something that isn't SQL. No amount of arguing can convince them otherwise. So I don't argue with them, it' a waste of my time. That's not to say it's a waste of time, but it's a waste of my time. I continue to work on the project, make it better, grow the user base, etc. But I don't engage the skeptics, I let the code and real successes stand on it's own, and others can argue in it's defense if they are so inclined (and many are). Anyway, for climatologists, the easiest way to deal with the skeptics is make as much data and methodology as possible public and easily accessible. Skeptics will still argue against it, but others will take up the fight of arguing for it. If it's possible that people will argue passionately about a new style of database, it stands to reason there's a whole army of people ready to take up the fight of supporting your data, methodologies and conclusions when it involves the entire Earth's climate. And if the skeptics finds something in your research people can't defend, maybe your data or methods are flawed and need improvement. That's a good thing regardless if it came from skeptics or supporters.