Science denialism: The problem that just won’t go away

Not secret, just invisible to those enamored by the cartoonists blog. You won't see what you refuse to see.

 

Riiiiight. It's not secret. It's double secret!

 

Listen I will give a donation to this site if you can prove by scientific critique using academic methods that Skeptical Science is not accurate or reliable

 

I'll sweeten the pot even farther, Hoosier. I happen to know that there is at least one place on Skeptical Science where the information is not up-to-date and has been superseded by more recent research. If you can find it, I'll donate to PF too.

 

It would be for you. For everyone else, it is visible.

- - - Updated - - -

Appeal to authority fallacy.

 

You should learn what an appeal to authority fallacy actually is. Asking someone to support their argument is not it.

 

LOL, if all you believe is peer review papers then you would also have to believe this is all caused by the sun. At some point in time you have to think for yourself.

 

If the site is as bad as you claim it should be a doddle to prove that the statements on that site are fallacious

- - - Updated - - -

The ignorance chasm keeps getting wider

Obviously does not know what peer review is

 

Sure, but if peer review is the end all and be all, you would have to believe all peer reviewed papers like the Russian papers that show the sun is the main driver of current conditions so it isn't peer review you are interested in but appeal to authority fallacy.

 

Unlike some here, I don't suffer from the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Those who produce peer reviewed papers spend much more time studying the issue than you or I ever will. And just because the sun drives all climate change doesn't mean it can be the only cause of the current warming trend. Your furnace may be what keeps you warm during the winter, but that doesn't prevent the extra blanket on your bed from making you too hot.

It's not an appeal to authority fallacy when the person you're appealing to is actually an authority on the subject in question.

 

Oooooh now I get it. It's magic evidence. Magic evidence that only certain people can see! It's miraculous evidence that science is wrong! And the only people who can see it are people who den't understand science in the first place! Because if you understand science, you can't see the evidence that it's wrong!

It's an appeal to magic, from a guy who castigates an appeal to authority ...

 

Why should anyone trust that site?

They use just enough accurate information, lie by omission, and are nothing but an alarmist blog.

 

Same question then, LP: point out where they're wrong. Let's see what's in your hand. If you have a card to play, play it. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke.

If they're lying by omission, what relevant peer-reviewed science did they omit?

 

Been played, then you guys resort to more logical fallacies. It is an endless and useless exercise with those of closed minds.

 

People on the Science board are generally closed-minded about magical evidence. Why not head over to religion? Or conspiracy theories? I'm sure you'd feel much more at home there.

 

Because AGW is not my religion as it is yours. Maybe you should head over there.

 

So says the guy with magical evidence. What a hoot.

 

So you think the things posted that you are incapable of understanding is magic? Go figure.

 

So what is more valid than peer review - blogs? Opinion pieces? Cherry picked data on someone's facebook page? An Email that has been sent to you? A tweet from someone? "Wot sum bloke in da pub sed"?

More importantly than one study are meta-analysis of the data - that is where the studies are reviewed and if they are not robust enough they are excluded (not because they do not fit the desired outcome but because the data has to be of a certain minimum quality) The results are then pooled to get an overall picture. This has been done with climate science by more than one body of reviewers and they ALL came to the same conclusions

 

No but unsupported hoopla is the equivalent of magic. You are the one contending we would not understand without offering the evidence itself

And once again there is deflection from the request that you show us where Cook's site is in error

 

LOL, wrong again, only a select few come to the same conclusions and there is often much disagreement with their statements among the scientists in those bodies.

 

Really - that was true of the IPCC, the Garnaut review, the Stern Review, and others? Who "did not come to the same conclusions" and please please do not quote the NIPCC or other oil industry funded "think tanks"

 

Hmm, let's take the IPCC. According to the faithful, some of the contributors are now deniers. Guess what, they don't write the final report for government, only a select few do and that process is not public.

 

Wrong wrong wrong and wrong

And I am not backing my statements until you do. Prove to me that your allegations are correct

 

"Only a select few" as in over 830 members, in a process that is posted right there on their web site.