Quote:
Originally Posted by MudphudCoug
I'm not climatologist, but I think I have a pretty good idea about how science works. We have a great competitive system in our country. The best, most rigorous scientists are devoted to the truth, and these scientists end up being successful. Bad scientists have short careers.
I have no reason to believe that climatology in America is less rigorous than other sciences. Since I'm not a climatologist, I choose to trust the experts.
Critics need to come up with genuine, peer-reviewed data...or they need to just shut up and learn. If they aren't capable of testing hypotheses, then they have no room to talk.
|
As a general proposition, I agree with you.
But how am I as a lay person to know who is legitimate and who is not?
Lebowski states that Lindzen should not be trusted because he accepts some money in the early 1990s. Am I to believe that only Gore's people are to be trusted?
This is my dilemma as a lay person. Who is legitimate? How can I know?
And how do I discern bias?
I trust generally the scientific process, but I must be the only one who sees a potential for abuse or a skewing of findings in order to generate more research dollars.