[TheEnemy]

Originally Posted by Occasionally6

What extra information do you think you will get from seeing the full papers vs the abstracts (and tables and graphics)? Having seen both, I can tell you there's not a lot more (for the lay person) in the papers.

The abstracts are available to anyone, the names of the people who contributed to the papers are accessible to anyone, the papers themselves are accessible to anyone who want's to pay the journals' subscription fees.

There is a case for, and has been some discussion over, allowing greater access to scientific papers, and indeed the work that underpins them. That is, in part, what lead to the existence of PLOS ONE.

But, why only science relevant to climate change? I'm sure if you needed treatment for a health condition you wouldn't be asking to see the papers that provide the evidence for how effective the treatment might be. You'd just accept that it worked.

The whole process of science is a check. Each research group is a check against the others. Where, exactly, is it that you think that process doesn't work?

I want to see the guts of their calculations, I want to see how they came about their answers.