Well, to be fair McAleer isn't a "skeptical journalist".He's a garden-variety denialist.Skepticism and denialism are not the same thing."But what am I supposed to do the next time I wake up and someone whose name I don't know has produced another plausible-seeming account of bias in the climate-change science? Am I supposed to invest another couple of hours in it? Do I have to waste the time of the readers of this blog with yet another long post on the subject? Why? Why do these people keep bugging us like this? Does the spirit of scientific scepticism really require that I remain forever open-minded to denialist humbug until it's shown to be wrong? At what point am I allowed to simply say, look, I've seen these kind of claims before, they always turns out to be wrong, and it's not worth my time to look into it?Well, here's my solution to this problem: this is why we have peer review. Average guys with websites can do a lot of amazing things. One thing they cannot do is reveal statistical manipulation in climate-change studies that require a PhD in a related field to understand. So for the time being, my response to any and all further "smoking gun" claims begins with: show me the peer-reviewed journal article demonstrating the error here. Otherwise, you're a crank and this is not a story."The Economist.(Known hotbed of Communist sympathies)If somebody was actually interested in checking out a science source on scientist's stolen e-mails "controversy" then you could always read...Nature.(A vital cog in the conspiracy.)Or, at a pinch, New Scientist.(Don't be fooled by the title! Oh no.)Or just check out the latest "Crock of the Week" video by Sinclair.He has this really sneaky way of addressing the issue.He actually...reads...the emails.(gasp!) Key question from the video: Are climate deniers really that stupid?Part One. and...Part Two.
Post a Comment