Is there something wrong with questioning scientific theories? Except that it's not PC.
Not if you're actually qualified to question them; if on the other hand you're not a specialist in the field and you're claiming all those who are haven't a clue what they're talking about, then yes, there's something wrong with it and you're very likely both wrong and a quack.
So basically, the scientific process is limited to a group of select insiders and outside criticism is forbidden?
FYI, most serious skeptics don't claim the specialists "haven't a clue". They claim that the certainty in our current conclusions is overstated. It's also important to note that many AGW proponents make the exact same claim when geoengineering is discussed.
Let me rephrase that for you to more reflect reality...
The scientific process is limited to those educated on the subject and criticism from the uneducated isn't taken seriously nor should it be.
So, if you're not a climate scientist, and your position on climate science is in opposition to 99% of actual climate scientists, it's very likely that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about and should be summarily ignored by any rational person.
FYI, I'm a former scientist, so I have some idea of the scientific process. It's actually pretty rare for a field to declare outside opinions worthless. The only other fields I'm aware of which try to do this are math ed, labor economics, and psychometrics of race/gender.
I'm also not sure why you are attempting to conflate not being a climate scientist with being uneducated. That's simply ridiculous.
> It's actually pretty rare for a field to declare outside opinions worthless.
You're the one that keeps bringing up the word worthless. I said people who hold strong opinions on topics in which they aren't educated should be ignored because they have a high probably of not knowing what the fuck they're talking about. That's a fact!
Perhaps you're confused about the difference between outside opinion and uneducated opinion or perhaps you just want to setup a straw man to demolish.
> I'm also not sure why you are attempting to conflate not being a climate scientist with being uneducated.
I'm not, you're projecting; but it tells me plenty about you.
Let me know when it's actually most climate scientists making those bogus predictions and then maybe you'll have a point. Being an environmentalist doesn't make someone's opinion qualified.
> ClimateGate letters show strong evidence of politics and groupthink affecting the field
They showed no such thing. There was no wrong doing uncovered nor anything unethical, ClimateGate was a fake story put on and kept alive by the press.
Dishonest and illegal behavior on the part of politically motivated climate scientists does reduce my belief in their impartiality, yes.
My beef is not with it being PC or nPC.
It is about questioning the theorie(s) in a scientific manner with rigorously formulated and educated questions. Otherwise, it is merely politics/BS/political-BS.
A) did it have to do with the article in question?
B) Did you see the reference to climate change on wikipedia or you have actually read the chapter on it in my book where I feel I present a very balanced view.
My ire was directed towards the idea that any criticism of global climate change is bunk simply because it is not PC. I would posit that such criticism, in the context of general public and media, is mostly bunk for the reason I outlined in my first reply.