Is it reasonable to expect scientists split on an issue to debate their differences?
Discuss, not debate. All of the available facts support their conclusion, or they are wrong. There is no room for "debate".
And if one side won’t look at contrary data, but covers its ears and loudly chants, la la la la la?
There are no sides. Not all data is equally reliable, and not all interpretations of the data are equally well considered, but the facts do not depend on interpretation or opinion. When two hypotheses are irreconcilable, one or both of them will be discarded as invalid.
That is the sheerest BS.
You’re better than that.
No, it’s not, and I’m not (technically it isn’t possible to be better than to let the facts speak for themselves). Why not offer an example of a case in science where relevant independently verifiable data or results are being ignored? Why not offer an example of two “sides” in science, where one “side” refuses to accept or acknowledge the independently verifiable and repeatable research of the other “side”?
"No, it’s not, and I’m not (technically it isn’t possible to be better than to let the facts speak for themselves)."
Dr Judith Curry on the "two sides."
That is politics and policy, not science. The hypothesis that reducing CO2 emissions would have no effect on climate is untested. What we know about climate and climate change is science. What we should or could do about it, if anything, is politics.
There’s a debate coming up!
Nonsense. It’s precisely about the science.
And the science of CO2 is known by everyone with any knowledge of chemistry. Organic molecules emit it at a rate dependent on temperature. More heat, more CO2. Less heat, less CO2.
Here is the smackdown.
Which side presented hard data and which talked in generalities and ignored the data?
Sounds like you’ve already chosen a “side” in a “debate” that isn’t based on science at all.
Yes, I did after noticing all the verifiably nonsensical claims of the alarmists and examining other interpretations of the data presented. Looks like you have too but won’t consider the other side.
How about that claim that heat leads CO2?
How about the debate I linked you to?
C'mon, do better.
I can see why the alarmists don’t want to think debate is a part of science. I think you can too.
Don’t stop now.
We have lots to go over.
You’ve already chosen your result, and have dismissed the available data. That’s the opposite of what those doing science or interested in gaining knowledge would do. There is no debate, and discussions with science deniers are inevitably a waste of time. The facts are readily available for free if you ever decide you might not actually already know more than the experts in the field, but until then, I have no interest in wasting more time than I already have on this.
WATCH THE DAMN VIDEO!
"You’ve already chosen your result, and have dismissed the available data. That’s the opposite of what those doing science ...."
Actually I’ve formed a different opinion based on the available data, you know, like that presented in the video you won’t acknowledge, which shows you don’t dare admit what science shows.
Scientists don’t debate, they do research and publish it. Facts and evidence don’t get debated, but they can be contested with other evidence.
Which should be happening but isn’t because journals refuse to print articles from anyone but the hysterics.
(Wouldja look at that. I created a noun.)
You obviously don’t know anything about publications and the scientific community, so I’ll try to explain. One of the most prominent and respected journals, Nature, publishes 22% of the articles it receives in a year. Articles must be peer reviewed and 30-50% are rejected before they even reach peer review. The articles are peer reviewed by top academics in the field your paper is in and they can either accept it or call for revisions. If the papers aren’t getting published, then there is a flaw in their manuscript that they aren’t correcting or there is a critical error in their scientific analysis. 🤷♀️
And just how do you get articles approved by "top academics" whose standing is dependent on following the company line?
Top academics are accredited by their degrees and research. They’re not employed by the journal or paid by the journal companies.
No kidding, Captain Obvious.
That is not how science works. "Debate" has no place in the scientific process. Not is there such a thing as " consensus" in science...
Which is exactly what one side of the AGW controversy is claiming and is one more piece of evidence those who push it aren’t strictly interested in the science of it.
Not really. That’s not how science works; it isn’t a debate.
I get your response, but theories arise and the outcome of studies generate differing opinions. In a situation where varying opinions, representing different interpretations of the data are allowed reasonably equal evaluation, the best interpretation has a chance to win out. What value is there to a situation where one side controls the grant process and access to publication in journals?
I have some thoughts (a lot of them, actually) on that, but I’m getting ready to go out for the day. You deserve more than a quick response; I’ll try to remember to come back later (making a note to self...).
I look forward to it. Have a great day.
Susan ... it appears that we’ve come full circle! Before scientists had gathered vast amounts of data debunking the climate alarmist theories anyone who dared to question those alarmists was derided as a science denier. The demand was for total allegiance to the hysteria.
Now that Independent scientists have the scientific data to debunk the climate hysteria, you suggest that science isn’t about debate. While I agree, that debate does not determine science, it’s equally true that hiding from scientific data is not science!
Climate deniers have retreated into their caves, unwilling to discuss the scientific data simply because it undermines their positions.
Not the cult of climate change
Why wouldn’t it be interesting to see the two sides debate?
John Stossel set one up. The climate alarmists didn’t show.
Kscott- I confirmed it. You are right.
That says a lot.
It would be but cultists do not wish to discuss only berate
After this one,
why would they?
I'd expect them to discuss the differences and why they may exist. When working toward a solution, giving merit to different answers to the same issue provided by science is important because it allows you to design studies that may lead to more complete and correct answers. If people refuse to discuss it, I would infer they have no interest in looking for more complete or more accurate answers.
And if one side refuses, what would you infer from that refusal?
HBNY has apparently joined those who’ve put me on ignore for insisting that AGW doesn’t rise to the level of science if one side insists the other shouldn’t be heard.
That’s the echo chamber at work.
He put me on ignore for disagreeing politely over a pretty minor issue.
Some folks just can’t tolerate disagreement.
Thanks for that. It bothers me a little when people won’t engage. It’s what I think we’re here for.
He has me on ignore. I don’t even know why.