|2011-08-06 12:00:21||What is wrong with the "Skeptical Science" blog?|
Back from holiday (as a lovely greeting back in Brisbane, our car got rear-ended this morning - great to be back!) and now going through the piled-up emails. One interesting one is this blog post:
Curious that the example they link to is the list of evidence for human fingerprints - narry a word about consensus or opinions, it's all about the evidence. Perhaps demonstration that blogs are like ink blots - people see in them whatever they want to see.
|2011-08-06 12:05:36||Watch out for low-flying bacon|
I believe the scientific term that describes their approach and attitude is "gibberish".
They have as much chance of being right as I still do of playing centerfield for the NY Yankees (since I have actually played the game I have the odds in my favor a bit).
(I forgot to mention that I'm pushing 50...)
Maybe the scientific method in it's literal definition has passed it's sale by date?
In any case there is an over-emphasis on the word experiment and it's meaning.
Methodical procedure that is repeatable, includes the analysis of temperature data using methods that are repeatable!
The person that has 'dogmatic faith' is the person that has a pedantic faith in the literal interpration of the scientific method.
Actually, how about having a blog post or series about defining the scientific method and what it means. Or maybe just explain what constitutes an experiment.
I'ld volunteer to do a blogpost on the nature of science, but it may be a month before I can write it, timewise.
|2011-08-07 00:48:09||Defining trems|
When I come across a blog like the one above, I post:
What a bizarre and worthless E&E paper they link to.
Good grief, what a load of nonsense. Completely misguided and ideological.
That paper they link to does not in any way refute the theory of AGW-- it is a political rant made under the guise of pseudo science.
I like their forecast for the 21st century, well it is a forecast by Abdussamatov. Someone should tell Dana. Apparently global temperatures are going to cool a whopping 1 C by ~2050!
That site is a totally wacko anti-science site.
The site is a factory producing fodder for the brain-dead, such as, in paraphrasis -
we know that models are unreliable because Piers Corbyn says so;
the climate is inherently stable;
CO2 doesn't cause warming;
the climate is cooling;
we should produce more CO2 to stop the cooling;
CO2 is plant food and without plants, animals starve;
the global warming hoax is an excuse to promote alternative energy;
etc. ad nauseum
and if I read much more of that garbage I'm gonna puke!
|It sounds to me like he's trying to provoke us into doing a post or two on him. I would guess that deniers must feel that they haven't made an impact until they have received the SkS treatment. Obviously we should ignore him. The journal he published in is not the real E&E (Sonja B-C) but a wannabe copy cat. That's truly a sign of desperation.|