4 ms·

This is the best way science should respond to skeptics: make all the data open and easily accessible for anyone to have a look through and critique. Well done

This is the best way science should respond to skeptics: make all the data open and easily accessible for anyone to have a look through and critique. Well done RC.

dantheman 17y ago
Except they're not making all the data open...
vixen99 17y ago
'Science' versus skeptics' is it? Really? Evidently you haven't been paying attention over the past couple of weeks.
- pierrefar 17y ago
  To me the heart of the current battle isn't scientist vs skeptics who I define as people that will never change their minds regardless of any weight of evidence. Sure not all data is 100% solid, and sure scientists make mistakes, but at the end of the day, we have more than enough data to be convinced about human-caused climate change. Skeptics are people who disagree blindly and jump at slips as problem with the whole of climate change; this mentality ignores the rest of a substantial number of datasets. So yes, science vs skeptics it is.
  - NikkiA 17y ago
    Most of us that are angry over this issue, are NOT blind skeptics. Personally, I have doubts over AGW, that's not to say I think it's all bullshit, but I have my doubts over some of the claims made, and want to see an open and responsible approach to models, data and results. I am continually angered at being called a 'denier' or 'anti-warmer' just because I don't buy the whole belief system 100%. Do I think climate change is a serious issue? Yes, Do I think that we'd all be better if we cut back on CO2 emissions? Of course. Do I think that corporations should be held accountable for their effect on the environment? Damned right. Do I think that that there are no other causes? I'm not sure. Apparently, that makes me a loon, a non-scientist, someone who can't think, a paid shill for the oil industry, a religious fanatic and a rightwing nutjob.
    - pierrefar 17y ago
      No one said you're a loon or a shill. This kind of Dawkins-like extremism and arrogance has no place in science. I apologize if my comment came across that way. In my view, there is enough evidence right now that the cause of the currently observed climate change is human caused, specifically, due to our massive increase in CO2 production. This evidence comes from multiple independent sources (ice cores, tree rings, satellites) that all point in the same general direction. There isn't any alternative reasonable explanation on the table right now, one that explains all the observations. What other causes do you think there are?
InclinedPlane 17y ago
Yes, it is. But it does a disservice to science by putting "skeptics" outside the wire. Science is skeptics. Science is the relentless asking of the questions "why?" and "how?" Science is what's left when the dross of human fallibility and uncritical thinking is boiled away in the cauldron of intense public scrutiny of underlying data. This isn't the "best" way that scientists should respond to skeptics, it's the only way that a true scientist can respond. Anything else is just playing at science, dressing up opinion as theory, or argument from authority.

This is the best way science should respond to skeptics: make all the data open and easily accessible for anyone to have a look through and critique. Well done RC.

dantheman 17y ago

Except they're not making all the data open...

vixen99 17y ago

'Science' versus skeptics' is it? Really? Evidently you haven't been paying attention over the past couple of weeks.

pierrefar 17y ago
To me the heart of the current battle isn't scientist vs skeptics who I define as people that will never change their minds regardless of any weight of evidence. Sure not all data is 100% solid, and sure scientists make mistakes, but at the end of the day, we have more than enough data to be convinced about human-caused climate change. Skeptics are people who disagree blindly and jump at slips as problem with the whole of climate change; this mentality ignores the rest of a substantial number of datasets. So yes, science vs skeptics it is.
- NikkiA 17y ago
  Most of us that are angry over this issue, are NOT blind skeptics. Personally, I have doubts over AGW, that's not to say I think it's all bullshit, but I have my doubts over some of the claims made, and want to see an open and responsible approach to models, data and results. I am continually angered at being called a 'denier' or 'anti-warmer' just because I don't buy the whole belief system 100%. Do I think climate change is a serious issue? Yes, Do I think that we'd all be better if we cut back on CO2 emissions? Of course. Do I think that corporations should be held accountable for their effect on the environment? Damned right. Do I think that that there are no other causes? I'm not sure. Apparently, that makes me a loon, a non-scientist, someone who can't think, a paid shill for the oil industry, a religious fanatic and a rightwing nutjob.
  - pierrefar 17y ago
    No one said you're a loon or a shill. This kind of Dawkins-like extremism and arrogance has no place in science. I apologize if my comment came across that way. In my view, there is enough evidence right now that the cause of the currently observed climate change is human caused, specifically, due to our massive increase in CO2 production. This evidence comes from multiple independent sources (ice cores, tree rings, satellites) that all point in the same general direction. There isn't any alternative reasonable explanation on the table right now, one that explains all the observations. What other causes do you think there are?

InclinedPlane 17y ago

Yes, it is. But it does a disservice to science by putting "skeptics" outside the wire. Science is skeptics. Science is the relentless asking of the questions "why?" and "how?" Science is what's left when the dross of human fallibility and uncritical thinking is boiled away in the cauldron of intense public scrutiny of underlying data. This isn't the "best" way that scientists should respond to skeptics, it's the only way that a true scientist can respond. Anything else is just playing at science, dressing up opinion as theory, or argument from authority.