Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEnemy
Science is supposed to be open, open to ones peers, open to scrutiny, open to opposing views. That is how HONEST science is conducted. The open discussion either strenthens the theory, or kills it.
|
Up to a point, and assuming that one's peers are willing to look at the science, rather than coming in with the attitude that they're going to use any tactic, including outright lies and disruption, to try to discredit science that conflicts with their economic, political, and religious ideologies. Do you really think astronomy should be "open" to Flat Earthers, or that geology & biology should give serious attention to creationists?
Quote:
|
Why is much of climate science conducted behind closed doors with only the conclusions being public...
|
It isn't. (See above about lies & disruption.) It's perfectly open to anyone who troubles to learn how to do the science. Granted, that's not something your average American is willing to do, but the lack of willingness is their problem. The information & tools are readily available. You might start with this:
Amazon.com: Principles of Planetary Climate (9780521865562): Raymond T. Pierrehumbert: Books
Quote:
|
Why is it that only those scientists that agree are allowed to work on the core data.
|
Got it backwards. First, the "core data" is nothing more than the mechanics of radiative transfer & properties of CO2, which has been known & freely available for a century and more. (Arrhenius worked out the basics with pencil & paper, back around 1900.) Add to that the measured increase in atmospheric CO2, again readily available, and you have all you need.
Second, to prove this statement you'd have to come up with instances of disagreeing scientists, who are vanishingly rare. Then you'd need to find one of these who's not been allowed to work on whatever you allege to be "core data".