Skeptical Science Website … So, What’s Your Point?

There’s a website called “Skeptical Science … examining the science of global warming skepticism”, Skeptical Science: Examining Global Warming Skepticism.

While admitting that scientific skepticism is “a healthy thing”, he seems to take particular pleasure in deriding what he considers “skeptic arguments” while basically failing to put forward any arguments of his own to justify his support for “anthropogenic” global warming other than carefully picking his own sources, a number of which are becoming increasingly controversial.  I suppose that’s a safe approach to take … ridicule those you disagree with while hiding in a closet with like-minded people.

There are articles on his site with numerous graphs and charts pointing out various things and there’s a lot of discourse related to those articles … if you want to delve into them. I did … regarding a few. And, I frankly found it enlightening regarding how much disagreement there was over data, trends, variables, models, and “anthropogenic” effect on global warming. I forgot to mention the cartoons he posts. I suppose they’re there for the “anthropogenic” global warming advocates that can’t read. The author of the site states,

“Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports anthropogenic
global warming and yet eagerly, even blindly embrace any argument,
op-ed piece, blog or study that refutes global warming.”

It sounds like he’s talking about himself on the other side of the argument. He goes on to say,

“So this website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do
their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed
scientific literature say?”

Yet, what does he offer in rebuttal? Frankly, nothing that I can discern other than referencing the same sources over and over again.

He conveniently lumps together people who don’t believe in global warming at all with people who are aware that global warming has been going on for tens of thousands of years but don’t wholeheartedly and blindly buy into the current fad that any recent changes in global warming are “anthropogenic”.

Mr. “Skeptical Science” states his scientific credentials then smugly and safely hides behind his ridicule of those he disagrees with while apparently doing his own cherry picking of facts, selectively ignoring valid questions by people visiting his site while repeatedly referring to his same ole’ defenses.

Even deceased Michael Crichton has fallen victim to his and his followers’ ridicule. One of the groups referred to for debunking Crichton, RealClimate, couldn’t get it straight whether croplands cooled or heated the climate.Apparently, none of them have left their cozy air-conditioned offices to go stand barefooted in a freshly plowed field on a hot summer afternoon or flown over fields and forests to notice the difference in updrafts or downdrafts, winter and summer.

So, I think back home we would consider him some kind of cowardly piss-ant of sorts and not worth the bother of more than pointing out his deficiencies.

I’m one of those people acutely aware that global warming has been going on for thousands of years but not completely buying into the hysteria of “anthropogenic” acceleration of the process. I’ll leave that to the smug schmucks that follow their high priest, Al Gore.

Meanwhile, I’ll ride my bicycle more and plan on taking trips on it because it’s healthier and fun even if a little dangerous.

I’ll be an advocate for passenger rail because it’s more fuel efficient than air or auto for intermediate and long term travel, albeit slower and for practical purposes … nonexistent in the U.S. except in, and to service the needs or desires of, the Northeast Corridor … and selfish union employees… a 20th century mistake. It is a necessity, although an apparently neglected component of travel for the future,  in the world of the “electric car” … that can’t go more than 60 or 100 miles without an eight or ten hour charging.

I’ll also advocate for nuclear power and more oil exploration and use of coal. Somehow we’re going to have to generate electricity for those electric cars and with the current state of solar and wind power, land based and offshore, it’s going to take a while to get those energy producers up and running as well as time to determine if they actually will produce the energy we need … some more healthy skepticism regarding hypotheticals.

I don’t think the detractors of nuclear, oil and coal have considered the toxic manifestations of the disposal of millions of batteries large enough to power millions of electric cars. If you think coal and nuclear waste are polluting the planet, consider what those batteries are made of and how frequently they will have to be replaced … and at what expense. There’s some toxic waste to consider.

So …

Mr. “Skeptical Science”, what’s your point … other than an oxymoronic attempt to ridicule and suppress those you disagree with?


4 Responses

  1. Okay, coming late to the party but I only just read this post for the first time today. Firstly, your comment that I’m “failing to put forward any arguments of his own to justify his support for “anthropogenic” global warming” was a fair comment back in March 2009 – at that time, I hadn’t written a succinct summary of the empirical evidence for global warming. I have since remedied that:

    You mention several times that global warming has been going on for thousands of years which seems to convince you that humans can’t be causing global warming now. There have actually been many studies into past periods of dramatic climate change. What they find is that climate is sensitive to changes in our planet’s energy balance. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. So past climate change, especially periods of dramatic change, actually provide evidence for our climate’s sensitivity to CO2. I link to relevant papers on this topic at:

    So what’s the point of skeptical science? Probably the main point I’m trying to communicate is when you look at all the skeptic arguments alongside the peer reviewed science has to say, a pattern emerges. Skeptic arguments focus on a small piece of the puzzle but if you look at the broader picture, you find that this narrow focus often leads to misleading conclusions. So I recommend investigating what the peer reviewed scientific literature has to say lest you be misled by a cherry picking skeptic argument.

  2. Climate after the mid 1970’s is the result of non-linear dynamic and chaotic systems rather than obviously CO2.

    Climate shifted again in 1998/2001.

    A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts
    Anastasios A. Tsonis,1 Kyle Swanson,1 and Sergey Kravtsov1
    Received 5 April 2007; revised 16 May 2007; accepted 15 June 2007; published 12 July 2007.
    [1] We construct a network of observed climate indices in
    the period 1900–2000 and investigate their collective
    behavior. The results indicate that this network
    synchronized several times in this period. We find that in
    those cases where the synchronous state was followed by a steady increase in the coupling strength between the indices, the synchronous state was destroyed, after which a new climate state emerged. These shifts are associated with significant changes in global temperature trend and in
    ENSO variability. The latest such event is known as the
    great climate shift of the 1970s. We also find the evidence
    for such type of behavior in two climate simulations using a
    state-of-the-art model. This is the first time that this
    mechanism, which appears consistent with the theory of
    synchronized chaos, is discovered in a physical system of
    the size and complexity of the climate system.
    Citation: Tsonis, A. A., K. Swanson, and S. Kravtsov (2007),
    A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts, Geophys.
    Res. Lett., 34, L13705, doi:10.1029/2007GL030288.

    • Interesting.

      For the rest of my readers, let me see if I get what your saying straight.

      From your first sentence and paragraph, I’m concluding that you’re saying whatever is causing changes in the climate, it doesn’t appear to be CO2 … your “non-linear dynamic and chaotic systems”.

      From the rest of your comment, I’m also concluding that you’re primarily commenting on observations which indicate, excuse my use of this phrase, “predictable unpredictability”, with no determined or defined cause other than your “theory of synchronized chaos”.

      Did I get all of that right?


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: