On Dec 27, 3:07*am, Eric Greenwell wrote:
T8 wrote:

The way I look at it, the burden of proof is on the researcher to
prove the theory which upsets the status quo, in this case AGW.
However, I believe that burden also includes providing every
opportunity for his skeptics to prove him wrong by checking his
assumptions, raw data, reasoning, models, results and conclusions.

I'm all for transparency, but there are limits: "Every opportunity" is
very open ended, and can lead to the scientist spending most of his time
dealing with requests for more and more information, and more and more
help understanding it, and more and more help running the models. You
may not know the people requesting all this information and all this
help expect it for *free*.

The standard, instead, are the papers he produces. If they are good
ones, they will provide the evidence needed. If the papers don't do
that, they may not get published, or if they are, then they don't get
much attention, are not cited very often, and the scientist finds
himself in the professional dust bin.

Besides, the raw data is available (and other resources), and nothing
should stop another person from devising his own theories, developing
his own models, and ultimately writing papers that don't have the
"flaws" he was complaining about. Some have done this, with varying
degrees of success. These responsibilities are amplified by the rush to public policy and
the extreme costs of such policy. *In my view this is absolutely
required.

There is no rush. The potential for climate problems began to be
understood in the '70's, and the science is far better now. It may seem
like there is a rush because we've delayed taking action sooner when the
problem was smaller.

Very nicely put.

“Maintaining an open mind is essential when exploring the
unknown,
but allowing one’s brains to fall out in the process is
inadvisable.”
Dean Radin