skepticism (countable and uncountable, plural skepticisms) (American spelling)- The practice or philosophy of being a skeptic.
- A studied attitude of questioning and doubt
- The doctrine that absolute knowledge is not possible
- A methodology that starts from a neutral standpoint and aims to acquire certainty through scientific or logical observation.
- Doubt or disbelief of religious doctrines
Points 2., 3., and 4. also apply directly to all scientific methods.
A trustworthy scientist knows that they have to work based on the best current understanding –– best meaning the one that has withstood tests and comparisons to real-world measurements the most –– and that it is not necessarily correct. They
believe in some things, but they also recognize that that belief itself is just a human tool, something to make it easier for them to handle the fact that they
know nothing for sure.
Indeed, one fun to work with faction of trustworthy scientists can be classified as diligent optimistic skeptics, who don't mind generalising and approximating things when there is real world utility in that.
Climate science is a bitch.
Researchers do not even agree to the underlying data sets. Any measurement over a hundred years old is subject to "adjustment", often meaning the known measurements are replaced by running some model in reverse, so that it reproduces some initial (latest) best guesses what the measurements would have been if they were done "properly"; then the actual measurements are replaced with the simulated values. Some measurements are ignored completely, because the researchers "do not believe in them", often because they can't get their models to reproduce such measurements at all.
Very few researchers understand the limitations of their models and simulations. Many are near-chaotic, such that small changes produce only small changes in short simulations, but above a certain limit, changes produce completely unpredictable results. That limit decreases the longer the simulation is.
Nobody agrees to the combined effects of insolation (solar output), composition of upper atmosphere (H2O and CO2 being the largest absorbers of sunlight spectrum, but stuff like ash – acting as kernels for water droplets – changing the picture completely), cloud reflection at lower atmosphere (aeroplane contrails and even large cargo ship exhaust) combined with seasonal winds, and so on. You cannot even do serious research on that, because whatever your findings are, those
believing otherwise will attack you with likely very deep pockets behind them (because all sides of the climate discussion are backed by deep pockets: many political, some industrial).
None of it is reliable. All stages have pokeable holes in them. Any claim –– and I do mean
any, from purely anthropogenic causation to fully anthropogenic causation, and all variants in between and outside –– can be shown to have a significant basis on arbitrarily selected data (choose the data to get the results you want) or poorly understood models and their initial parameters. Even meta-studies (looking at findings of existing studies) suffer from this.
Plus, historically, whenever the majority of scientists have agreed on something –– achieving the consensus some seem to be so desperate for –– they have turned out to be wrong within the next hundred years or so.
Basically, it is one of the fields of "science" we have managed to turn to utter shit, by messing and meddling with the data, its collection and collation, and now by using models we do not really know the limitations and faults of. I don't care what side of the findings –– ostensible results –– you take/accept/believe, it is going to be wrong anyway. You
cannot find the best-fitting model when there is so much political, social, and financial power involved in the result.
