Guardian Discusses “Real Science”

Are climate sceptics the real champions of the scientific method?

Since climate change came to prominence in 1988, the role of scientific knowledge – especially an idea of scientific consensus – has played a starring role in the ensuing academic enquiry/political debate/trench warfare (delete as preferred).

Beyond a depressingly binary characterisation of simply pro or anti-science, I’d argue sceptics cannot simply be written off as anti-science or conspiracy theorists (although I am sure one or two may fall into that category). Rather, they see themselves as upholding the standards of what they’d call “real science”.

Are climate sceptics the real champions of the scientific method? | Warren Pearce | Science | theguardian.com

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Guardian Discusses “Real Science”

  1. omnologos says:

    is this from the Guardian? are you sure?

  2. shazaam says:

    Means they see the writing on the wall and don’t like where it may leave them.

    Given it’s the Guardian, this is simply a CYA piece. So they can say they weren’t complete chumps.

  3. margaret berger says:

    The taxpayers and subscribers are the chumps, the government and the press are the cons stuffing their pockets and the pockets of their friends.

  4. Eric Simpson says:

    My comment from a previous thread:
    Nik, I don’t know if you saw that The Guardian had done an unexpectedly positive piece on skepticism, with praise for Anthony Watts and skeptic blogs (like this one!). I recommend that you search for UK sources for good skeptical comments, because there is something about the UK writers that is, I don’t know… intelligent. The Guardian article is no exception.
    For those of us that get in comment tussles with those parroting warmist talking points, there was a commenter that kept referring to skepticalscience dot com, and a skeptic had an outstanding response (in which ‘Rob’ later had a kind of gibbering ineffectual counter response):

    “Rob – can’t you see that trying to hijack a constructive dialogue with a link to your climate activist site is just the sort of behaviour that caused this ugly polarised debate in the first place. Try and take in what Warren [Guardian author] is saying and realise that activist dogma is the absolute antithesis of the scientific method.

  5. Jeffk says:

    Yes science is evidence-based study of past and current data, information.
    Not a crystal ball gazing psychic hotline.

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 )

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