WUWT is the ‘guru’ blog representing the Global Warming skeptic consensus, so to speak. As they display, “the world’s most viewed climate website”, 120 million site views, 12 thousand followers, a site to be respected, I suggest.
The important thing is that there are more scientific evidence, data, claims and assessments presented and named by WUWT than all the IPCC publications and CAGW supporter papers. If not in quantity, certainly in quality.
This article by Christopher Monckton is an outstanding example of sound “skeptic” debate, covering a range of typical CAGW issues convincingly.
- 1. censoring information.
- 2. arguing solely from consensus
- 3. serially cite politicized websites and tendentious non-peer-reviewed presentations
- 4. failure to advance a single scientific or economic argument
- 5. Predictions of doom have failed
- 6. events have proven the consensus wrong
I agree with Christpher’s end statement “True science is founded not upon invective and illogic but upon reason. Lose that: lose all.”
Related articles
- Popular Technology: 1000+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm (tgrule.com)
- Lamb’s science to the slaughter (tgrule.com)
- Christopher Monckton Challenges Scott Denning Posting (yaleclimatemediaforum.org)
- Hockey Schtick: Why belief in CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) is not currently justified by the standards of the scientific method (acckkii.wordpress.com)
Christopher Monckton writes via email:
Dear Anthony, – Ivar Giaever and I were subjected to an unprovoked and more than usually scientifically illiterate personal attack at some length in the AGU’s Eos newsletter recently. I wrote the attached reply, which Eos are refusing to print. – Christopher
It appears that Eos has indeed refused to print this reply, as this according to the document properties, this document was created June 30th, when the early edition was available, and there’s been no response so far from Eos. -Anthony
Right of Reply
I am grateful to the editors of Eos for this right of reply to Corbin and Katz (Effective Strategies to Counter Campus Presentations on Climate Denial, Eos, 2012 July 3), an unjustifiable 1200-word personal attack on Dr. Giaever and me by way of a mélangeor smørgasbord of the shop-worn logical fallacies of argument ad populum…
View original post 1,724 more words
The GOLDEN RULE 