[moonchrome]

>Hire two and have one check the other.

Not if you don't trust the field. It's like saying if you don't like your numerology readings hire a different numerologist and compare the results.

Not saying I agree with the view but science is a lot less convincing when when you can't setup repeatable experiments.

>And no, it's not unreasonable to expect a non-technical person to review the data or the methods either.

You're going to review PHD level work that ran weather simulations on supercomputers and compiled various data sources with highschool level knowledge in your spare time ?

Perhaps you could do a security audit of OpenSSL if you have some free time on your hands - I'm sure people will even pay you if you manage to find security issues and you' be doing the community a big favor. Maybe we should hire some highschool grads to do it - start a kickstarter campaign and I'll pitch in.

[thaumasiotes]

> It's like saying if you don't like your numerology readings hire a different numerologist and compare the results.

To be fair, this is excellent advice, much better than "your numerologist knows what he's talking about, and you'd better follow his recommendations".

No real reason to compare the results afterwards, though.

[fineman]

Fwiw, not trusting climate science is like not trusting geological sciences.

But sure, if you don't trust someone from the 'warming' camp, get a 'status-quo' camp person to check their work.

And as for numerologists - try looking for another person skilled in your actual problem, relationships, work, etc...

When a mathematician checks their work they do so by a different method, not just repeating the same steps to reach the same potentially flawed answer.