A Question of Scientific Trust
Here are Judith’s questions (?):
JC comment [?]: So am I to infer from this [Naomi’s op-ed (?)] that the only way to support the IPCC consensus is to close your mind? And trust the ‘experts’? (like those we saw in the CRU emails)?
We notice the title: “JC comment”. We also notice the modality of the first question (?): “the only way”, which is kinda strong when one asks a question.
Considering that this inference is based on the “Yes, but CRU emails” and the “Yes, but Trenberth” tricks, must we infer that this is not a question, but a full-blown comment?
Auditors ought to know.
Here is one excerpt from the excerpted op-ed that can cast doubt on the necessity of the inference:
We have to get over that flawed notion. Scientists don’t play the role of prosecutor trying to prove a case. Rather, they are the jury trying to evaluate the evidence. And they have rendered their verdict. The problem is not that scientists have become advocates, as some have claimed. The problem is that there is no judge, no recognized authority giving us instructions we accept, and no recognized authority to accept the scientists’ verdict and declare it final.
I believe that Oreskes is underlying a fundamental problem with scientific trust. Oreskes is asking a question, and certainly not, considering the excerpts underlined in that post, inferring anything remote like what Judith’s questions (?) assume.
If six months in a lab can save one hour in a library, how many hours of thought experiments are needed to save a minute reading?
(Source: judithcurry.com)
