Home > AGW, Climate Change, Global Warming, Omniclimate, Policy, Science, Skepticism > Embarrassing “Skeptical Science” or The Return Of The Aristotelians

Embarrassing “Skeptical Science” or The Return Of The Aristotelians

I was meaning to write about the cringe-inducing website called “Skeptical Science” and today’s Revkin’s piece at dotEarth finally pushed me forward.

I feel embarrassment for John Cook, Skeptical Science author, for two reasons (neither concerning his rather disturbing photograph). First of all the very existence of such a site seems to be a loud scream at all that has gone wrong with the IPCC. If Mr Cook feels it necessary to spend as much time as he does on the topic, obviously he should be the first one to agree that the IPCC has been a communication failure.

(not that he’s really any better himself at that: by stating that “eventually, the scientific reality will be so in our faces that inaction will be impossible“, Cook is confirming that “the scientific realityis currently notso in our faces” as his scholarly lists of scientific papers appear to suggest)

The second reason I find Skeptical Science a disaster is that all it is ever going to tell us is that AGW is a self-consistent theory and there has been plenty of papers written on the topic. That can only highlight what will forever be missing: the science that was prevented to be published, the open questions, the competing claims within AGW orthodoxy.

In fact, one of the comments at dotEarth (#15) pretty much reveals the kind of person that would find the Skeptical Science site of high interest. The point is not to understand the world as it is, but to accumulate evidence for one’s own rationalization of what the world is presumed to be. Hence no space for any doubt whatsoever of any sort, not even for competing AGW interpretations, let alone for non-orthodox scientists (by definition, their work is “crap“).

Simplicius (*) would have been proud of that. “Science” it is not.

(*) the defender of the Aristotelian (geocentric) view of the world in Galileo’s “Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems

Advertisements
  1. 2012/03/24 at 21:26

    SOME OF YOU MUST BE FUNDED BY THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTERY , OTHERWISE WHAT A DEPRESING WASTE OF YOUR TIME.

  2. Ricki
    2011/09/06 at 21:49

    Again we find another shonky denier getting stuck into the man but never, never, ever producing the tiniest shred of evidence based on real science and not statistical fudging to disprove anthropogenic climate change theory or the reality of its unfolding before our eyes.

    • 2011/10/02 at 02:51

      If it is happening before our eyes as you say, then why is it obviously too much trouble for any believers in the magic CO2 religion to actually offer some evidence to support it? No, you offer nothing but pronouncements from your priests and you attack anyone who demands evidence. That’s not science, it’s religion. All the evidence is against your faith.

      • Strummer
        2011/12/18 at 02:43

        To say there is no evidence is completely ridiculous. There have been numerous experiments since 1859 that show the evidence you refuse to see. That CO2 traps heat is not a new idea, but then again neither is denying science.

  3. JLous
    2011/05/28 at 12:15

    Sorry mate, your article smacks of jealousy and not much else.

    Mr Cook runs a very good website that clearly states the science of climate and backs it up with peer-reviewed material.

    Compare that to the numerous “skeptical” sites that are full of would-be scientists that have some “brilliant” theory showing why AGW is wrong, but for some reason decide not to bother with publishing it.

  4. JS
    2010/10/20 at 07:21

    There is absolutely nothing of value or merit in this article. I was looking for something constructive and did not find it.

    A negative comment on a photo of someone who runs a website?

    A prediction of what the website in question will do in the future according to you?

    Not one verifiable statement?

    Why did you spend your time writing it?

  5. Ian
    2010/09/16 at 00:23

    I’m sorry?
    His website is crap because he only uses published peer reviewed scientific papers?

    Remember kids, quality control is BAD! give blogs equal weight to peer reviewed science!

    • 2010/09/16 at 00:32

      Ian -just out of curiosity…what is the relationship between your comment and my blog entry?

    • 2011/10/02 at 03:33

      “Peer reviewed science” is only real when it’s science. The magic CO2 believers want to ignore that part and claim that “peer review” validates their religion. And they have exactly the same credibility as the “peer reviewed” literature of other religions, including the creationists who also pretend to be practicing science. If you are only reviewed by fellow faithful, then it’s pretty meaningless. Evidence, on the other hand, would be meaningful. But there is no more evidence to support the magic CO2 nonsense than there is to support any other claim of magic.

  6. Kame Nompagne
    2010/06/11 at 05:50

    What a pointless entry. is your interest no more than to ridicule ? in this ‘debate’ your focus is.. blame and inuendo ? and why mention the photo ? your final thought in this entry is about ‘the kind of person’ who is interested in site x.. ?

    your ‘two points’ are themselves embarassingly simplistic, and flawed..
    1. The IPCC has had failures but is not a failure ? there is so much to appreciate in their work (unless you can not appreciate a single thing because you need to defend dogma)
    2. That site (Skeptical Science) seems to be systematic in the way it analyses issues one by one – surely it does not defer to some papers on a topic as you say ?

    Did you really think your were being smart ? your thoughts are extremely petty in this entry – I dare not read any others. And your criticisms could well apply to your own writing, perfectly – do go back and read them. Shame on you.

    • 2010/06/11 at 06:06

      thank you Kame. I love you too.

      • 2011/10/02 at 03:35

        There is nothing to support in the work of the IPCC because their work is the work of frauds and liars with not a shred of value.

  7. Kate
    2010/04/05 at 19:26

    I spent about three hours at DotEarth Sunday evening. I posted and read other posts.

    All the Sunday posts are gone today. (There were some skeptical ones.)

  8. cleanwater
    2010/04/05 at 19:25

    Having attempted to post real scientific data and papers to the Boggust web-site-it is obvious that it only provides for those that support the Hoax of man-made global warming.
    I am registared on the web-sire but when ever I attempt to log on I am blocked. Below are some references that should be known.
    List of references:
    The paper “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics” by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner is an in-depth examination of the subject. Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics
    B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X,
    c World
    Scienti c Publishing Company, http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb.

    Report of Alan Carlin of US-EPA March, 2009 that shows that CO2 does not cause global warming.

    Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics” by Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme This work has about 10 or 12 link
    that support the truth that the greenhouse gas effect is a hoax.
    February 25, 2010
    The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
    By Alan Siddons
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html at March 01, 2010 – 09:10:34 AM CST
    Free Republic
    Browse • Search
    Bloggers & Personal
    Topics • Post Article

    ________________________________________
    Skip to comments.
    Greenhouse Theory Disproved a Century Ago
    Town Hall ^ | 02/03/09 | reasonmclucus
    Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2009 7:15:22 PM by kathsua

    • Bruce Frykman
      2011/04/23 at 17:05

      I too attempted to present material that is contrary to the mission. if they don’t like the material is is “unscientific”, If they can edit your message to change it to the opposite of what you said, they will.

      Skeptical Science is the closest I have come to pure evil of any website I have yet encountered.

  1. 2011/09/21 at 00:13
  2. 2010/09/09 at 22:36
  3. 2010/09/07 at 11:26
  4. 2010/07/26 at 23:53
  5. 2010/03/26 at 16:32
  6. 2010/03/25 at 15:17

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: