Slashdot Mirror
How Blogs Are Changing the Scientific Discourse
quax writes "Mainstream media always follows the same kind of 'He said, she said' template, which is why even climate change deniers get their say, although they are a tiny minority. The leading scientific journals, on the other hand, are expensive and behind pay-walls. But it turns out there are places on the web where you can follow science up close and personal: The many personal blogs written by scientists — and the conversation there is changing the very nature of scientific debate. From the article: 'It's interesting to contemplate how corrosive the arguments between Bohr and Einstein may have turned out, if they would have been conducted via blogs rather than in person. But it's not all bad. In the olden days, science could easily be mistaken for a bloodless intellectual game, but nobody could read through the hundreds of comments on Scott's blog that day and come away with that impression.'"
I, for one, will mock you deniers at every opportunity. You are a small minority, about 1/3 of Americans and nearly nonexistent elsewhere. As Max Planck pointed out, we can't change your opinions, only wait for you to die. In the meantime, the mocking will continue. Get used to it, deniers.
Reminds me of a bio professor I had who would crack jokes at creationist theory in class whenever the opportunity came up. Haha, good times.
The old "this is how it is, but don't research it, because then we will have to shout you down, cause that's how science works!"
Your theories have been researched many times, even with dollars sourced only from people you like, but the results stubbornly continue to confirm that "mainstream" science was on the right track. How many more times will you insist that there has been an error and that the issue should be revisited? There's a word for people who do the same thing over and over again and expect different results, maybe you'd prefer it to "denier."
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
"Climate science skeptic's are about the proper use of science to tax man."
Nope, you're dead wrong here.
"The studies so far are based on science fiction"
Which studies? McIntyre, Wegman, Tony Watts? Sure is.
Mann, Jones, Hansen? Nope, their science is available for you to test, if you have the intelligence or will.
"So far the adjustments to the model don't work."
Nope, Hansen's 1988 model overestimated the actual trend since then by 10%. That's pretty damn far from "don't work".
You can go look at a REAL climate model. Let me know if it's missing "the sun", won't you.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/
Well, it's true, blogs have changed scientific discourse: any arsehole can make up any old shit and spread it far and wide. Please give your anus a break and let the adults think for a bit.
TIA.
Calling any scientific skeptics "deniers" is an attack on science and scientific method.
Calling deniers "skeptics" surely degrades science more.