Are climate sceptics the real champions of the scientific method?
Since climate change came to prominence in 1988, the role of scientific knowledge – especially an idea of scientific consensus – has played a starring role in the ensuing academic enquiry/political debate/trench warfare (delete as preferred).
Beyond a depressingly binary characterisation of simply pro or anti-science, I’d argue sceptics cannot simply be written off as anti-science or conspiracy theorists (although I am sure one or two may fall into that category). Rather, they see themselves as upholding the standards of what they’d call “real science”.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Science-Free Journalism
- Why Is Venus So Hot?
- Color Or Monochrome?
- AI Doublespeak
- AI Doublespeak
- Net Zero Intelligence
- “The Green Party dropped nearly 9 per cent”
- Fake Record Heat In India
- RFK Jr’s Plan For $12 Gas
- Hockey Match
- Hockey Match
- Giving Proper Credit
- Conspiracy Theory!
- “No One Is Above The Law”
- CNN Experts Discuss Medicine
- Looking For Their Lost Keys
- Rapid Climate Change
- CBS News 1982 : One Fourth Of Florida To Drown
- Affordable Transportation
- “Why Scientific Fraud Is Suddenly Everywhere”
- She Hates Her State
- Climate Friendly War
- Office Of Climate Change And Health Equity And Environmental Justice
- “100% Non-Carbon By 2030”
- 1991 : United Nations Calls For Genocide
Recent Comments
- oeman50 on Science-Free Journalism
- William on Why Is Venus So Hot?
- Michael L Dee on Science-Free Journalism
- Michael L Dee on Science-Free Journalism
- William on Science-Free Journalism
- Gordon Vigurs on Why Is Venus So Hot?
- Gordon Vigurs on Why Is Venus So Hot?
- arn on Science-Free Journalism
- Gordon Vigurs on Science-Free Journalism
- Bob G on Why Is Venus So Hot?
is this from the Guardian? are you sure?
will wonders ever cease!!! must be the BBC!!
Means they see the writing on the wall and don’t like where it may leave them.
Given it’s the Guardian, this is simply a CYA piece. So they can say they weren’t complete chumps.
But we know they are complete Chumps!
The taxpayers and subscribers are the chumps, the government and the press are the cons stuffing their pockets and the pockets of their friends.
Reblogged this on Gds44's Blog.
My comment from a previous thread:
Nik, I don’t know if you saw that The Guardian had done an unexpectedly positive piece on skepticism, with praise for Anthony Watts and skeptic blogs (like this one!). I recommend that you search for UK sources for good skeptical comments, because there is something about the UK writers that is, I don’t know… intelligent. The Guardian article is no exception.
For those of us that get in comment tussles with those parroting warmist talking points, there was a commenter that kept referring to skepticalscience dot com, and a skeptic had an outstanding response (in which ‘Rob’ later had a kind of gibbering ineffectual counter response):
Yes science is evidence-based study of past and current data, information.
Not a crystal ball gazing psychic hotline.