Not exact matches
Higher education needs leaders who can defend and explain the academy, while also listening and
taking seriously the
valid criticisms of it and finding new ways to address them.
The SMC's emphasis on «expert opinion», reflects the «values» recently evinced by Lewandowsky, that debate about the climate and
criticism of his own work is
valid only when «addressed through proper channels» — it «should
take place in the scientific literature».
How to discuss this publicly is tricky as hell, but to
take the «case closed» position that Holdren did opens you to
valid criticism.
A more
valid criticism is that I'm actually
taking out too much data, as the eruptions are only partially responsible for cooling in that period — for instance there was a La Niña episode in 1984
I think the core of your argument as I see it (the need for scientists to be less defensive, less circling of the wagons, more introspection, more communication and collaboration with «outsiders»,
taking criticism seriously, etc) is important and
valid.