John Quiggin links to a veritable open sandwich of reports and articles on scientific methodology, particularly in the context of climate change. One document in particular, by Ken Baldwin and entitled When is science valid?, is very much worth reading (it’s only three pages; as they say in the ads in Britain: go on, you deserve it). What it does well is give careful answers to questions that, while very simple, seem to require spelling out to some. For example,
Does a media debate between two scientists contribute to this process? Not really.
The reason is twofold. First, a debate does not allow the full scrutiny required of evidence-based expert examination. Second, the majority view of expert scientists cannot be reflected by a debate. In a debate, one adversary is pitted against another. This does not tell us if the majority of the scientific community are sitting on one side or the other.
Nice one. I suppose that talk of civilization going backward has its genesis in the observation that careful statements like this didn’t use to be necessary—that it was understood how a institution fostering dialogue between parties both claiming to be scientific, but asymmetrically committed to the scruples that entails, is making heat rather than light. Except I wouldn’t agree that this true statement was understood before—that we are having to make it so now is the result of the great changes in the opportunity and reward system for those making comment about social, political and scientific matters; changes that have only occured in the last few years.
For that reason, it’s important that the ideas Baldwin advances here be evaluated and understood by as wide a segment of the population as possible.
Letters to Nature 
I’ve seen Fox News, from this I assumed the loudest POV was the most correct? No?