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
- Is Antarctica Melting?
- High Speed Analysis And Visualization
- El Nino To The Rescue?
- Fake News Update
- Growth Of Antarctic Sea Ice
- 65 Years Of Progress!
- El Nino To The Rescue?
- Worst March Drought On Record
- ChartGL Process Control Demo
- The Biggest Money Laundering Scam
- Drought In The Headwaters Of Lake Powell
- Unrealistic Expectations Of Water Availability
- Did Bill Gates Do This?
- Worst March Drought On Record In The US
- The Real Hockey Stick Graph
- Analyzing The Western Water Crisis
- Gaslighting 1924
- “Why Do You Resist?”
- Climate Attribution Model
- Fact Checking NASA
- Fact Checking Grok
- Fact Checking The New York Times
- New Visitech Features
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2014
- Debt-Free US Treasury Forecast
Recent Comments
- conrad ziefle on Is Antarctica Melting?
- Gordon Vigurs on Is Antarctica Melting?
- Bob G on Is Antarctica Melting?
- conrad ziefle on High Speed Analysis And Visualization
- Bob G on 65 Years Of Progress!
- Bob G on 65 Years Of Progress!
- Gordon Vigurs on 65 Years Of Progress!
- arn on 65 Years Of Progress!
- arn on 65 Years Of Progress!
- Bob G on 65 Years Of Progress!
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.