> Is there something wrong with questioning scientific theories?
Not if you're actually qualified to question them; if on the other hand you're not a specialist in the field and you're claiming all those who are haven't a clue what they're talking about, then yes, there's something wrong with it and you're very likely both wrong and a quack.
I know that many apocalyptic predictions from environmentalists turned out to be false, that the ClimateGate letters show strong evidence of politics and groupthink affecting the field, and that even taking the environmentalists' dire predictions at face value does not provide an economic justification for the remedies they propose. As long as there are some smart, well-trained people questioning the "consensus", I will be slow to make up my mind.
> I know that many apocalyptic predictions from environmentalists turned out to be false
Let me know when it's actually most climate scientists making those bogus predictions and then maybe you'll have a point. Being an environmentalist doesn't make someone's opinion qualified.
> ClimateGate letters show strong evidence of politics and groupthink affecting the field
They showed no such thing. There was no wrong doing uncovered nor anything unethical, ClimateGate was a fake story put on and kept alive by the press.
At the least, the ClimateGate letters contain the refusal of a lawful FOIA request due to the requestor's political beliefs and a conspiracy to get others to do the same. The emails are out there. You can read them instead of the output of the True Believers' spin factory if you so choose.
None of that has anything to do with the science or the validity of it; you're bickering over whether the appropriate red tape was followed in the political process... who fucking cares, they didn't do anything unethical and nothing that was done or shown showed any of the science to be incorrect so using the incident to somehow doubt climate change makes zero sense.
Not if you're actually qualified to question them; if on the other hand you're not a specialist in the field and you're claiming all those who are haven't a clue what they're talking about,
So basically, the scientific process is limited to a group of select insiders and outside criticism is forbidden?
FYI, most serious skeptics don't claim the specialists "haven't a clue". They claim that the certainty in our current conclusions is overstated. It's also important to note that many AGW proponents make the exact same claim when geoengineering is discussed.
> So basically, the scientific process is limited to a group of select insiders and outside criticism is forbidden?
Let me rephrase that for you to more reflect reality...
The scientific process is limited to those educated on the subject and criticism from the uneducated isn't taken seriously nor should it be.
So, if you're not a climate scientist, and your position on climate science is in opposition to 99% of actual climate scientists, it's very likely that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about and should be summarily ignored by any rational person.
So, if you're not a homeopath and your position on homeopathy is in opposition to 99% of actual homeopaths, it's very likely that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about and should be summarily ignored by any rational person?
FYI, I'm a former scientist, so I have some idea of the scientific process. It's actually pretty rare for a field to declare outside opinions worthless. The only other fields I'm aware of which try to do this are math ed, labor economics, and psychometrics of race/gender.
I'm also not sure why you are attempting to conflate not being a climate scientist with being uneducated. That's simply ridiculous.
Homeopathy is not a valid field of science, rational people already ignore it.
> It's actually pretty rare for a field to declare outside opinions worthless.
You're the one that keeps bringing up the word worthless. I said people who hold strong opinions on topics in which they aren't educated should be ignored because they have a high probably of not knowing what the fuck they're talking about. That's a fact!
Perhaps you're confused about the difference between outside opinion and uneducated opinion or perhaps you just want to setup a straw man to demolish.
> I'm also not sure why you are attempting to conflate not being a climate scientist with being uneducated.
I'm not, you're projecting; but it tells me plenty about you.
It is about questioning the theorie(s) in a scientific manner with rigorously formulated and educated questions. Otherwise, it is merely politics/BS/political-BS.
For the first person who brought up this climate change thread I have a few questions I hope you can answer honestly:
A) did it have to do with the article in question?
B) Did you see the reference to climate change on wikipedia or you have actually read the chapter on it in my book where I feel I present a very balanced view.
I apologize for not making myself clear. My reply was not directed towards the article or your book, I was replying to the immediate parent only.
My ire was directed towards the idea that any criticism of global climate change is bunk simply because it is not PC. I would posit that such criticism, in the context of general public and media, is mostly bunk for the reason I outlined in my first reply.
