re: #290 sattv4u2

One big problem I have with the skeptic community is the astounding like of primary data they have.

Because for the most part the ‘skeptic’ questions the models of the coming affects. Those are yet to be seen, so they cannot present “primary data”
Thats why I differentiate between flat out deniers and skeptics

I don’t know that I agree with the ‘skeptic’ definition you’re using. We have seen plenty of examples of self-described ‘skeptics’ who repeatedly question the data itself. In fact, that was the source of much of the hysteria around the CRU. That the books were cooked and that data (which they wrongly claimed had been destroyed) had been manipulated.