You're not a climatologist, you're implying that public access will come to erroneous conclusions, and you're complaining about dogma?
"Wow! I could swear I was really playing virtual skeeball!"
Please enlighten me as to what constitutes proper?
Frankly, it sounds like the same kind of tripe as "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"; as if the standards of proof change for what some people consider "extraordinary".
The part that's most galling about this argument is that it usually comes from people who purport to be "scientific", when in fact subjectively shifting standars of proof are anything but.
Science is supposed to, nay, by definition is required to, reach a conclusion by what repeatable observations demonstrate. If said observations annoy people, don't jibe with current theory, or otherwise fail to conform to conventional understanding, it means precisely fuck-all.
1) Tap into old school hacker community mentality.
2) Rely on good people to do your large organizations work for free.
3) Degrade your own service.
Of course peolpe helping each other and a solid community are great, but in the context of this happening in lieu of large for-profit organizations providing quality service? I think not.
Seeing how they point out how this can save them millions of dollars leaves me nonplussed.