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
- Understanding Flood Mechanisms
- Extreme Weather
- 70C At Lisbon
- Grok Defending The Climate Scam
- “Earlier Than Usual”
- Perfect Correlation
- Elon’s Hockey Stick
- Latest Climate News
- “Climate dread is everywhere”
- “The Atmosphere Is ‘Thirstier.’”
- Skynet Becomes Self Aware
- “We Have To Vote For It So That You Can See What’s In It”
- Diversity Is Our Strength
- “even within the lifetime of our children”
- 60 Years Of Progress in London
- The Anti-Greta
- “a persistent concern”
- Deadliest US Tornado Days
- The Other Side Of The Pond
- “HEMI V8 Roars Back”
- Big Pharma Sales Tool
- Your Tax Dollars At Work
- 622 billion tons of new ice
- Fossil Fuels To Turn The UK Tropical
- 100% Tariffs On Chinese EV’s
Recent Comments
- arn on Understanding Flood Mechanisms
- dm on Extreme Weather
- Mike on 70C At Lisbon
- Mike on Extreme Weather
- conrad ziefle on Extreme Weather
- Luigi on 70C At Lisbon
- Luigi on 70C At Lisbon
- Bob G on Extreme Weather
- arn on 70C At Lisbon
- Gordon Vigurs on Extreme Weather
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.