mt over at CaS (slightly adapted):
Real skeptics do not place irrational disbelief in a different category than irrational belief, because a stubborn evidence-defying disbelief in proposition A is not different from a stubborn evidence-defying belief in proposition ~ A.
In fact, these people (“so called skeptics”) want us to bet the future of the entire world on the proposition that not only is climate sensitivity < 2, but climate sensitivity < < 2, despite the advice to the contrary of essentially every scientific body with any relevant expertise. Their irrational attachment to the S < < 2 proposition is something they choose to call “skepticism”, just as the fact that they are shown up in stolen emails as being held in low regard is regarded as scandalous.
Tobis is active on several good discussion threads. I just noted his excellent comment at Curry’s about the question of why scientists have not “publicly spoken out against what they might see as reprehensible behaviour.”
Initially I interpreted this reprehensible behaviour as the attacks on science from so called “skeptics” but apparently what the commenter to whom Tobis is responding, Don Aitkin, meant is the behaviour of some mainstream climate scientists. Which prompts mt to reply that it’s a “have you stopped beating your wife” kind of question. Don Aitkin gives a good and thoughtful exposition of where he’s coming from though (even though I don’t agree with him).
That’s the kind of discussion worth having.