From MasterResource
By Robert Bradley Jr.
“Let’s see if Skeptical Science makes another appearance on LinkedIn. It’s up to 458 followers. And see if this organization will only prepare entries about the best ‘skeptical’ arguments. With that middle ground, maybe we can have a real debate.
On LinkedIn, the alarmist Skeptical Science posted:
Surprisingly for what is considered a professional network, climate science misinformation is also shared on LinkedIn. Here is a list of some signs to look out for when reading posts or comments related to human-caused climate change or global warming:
Read the list here , but it’s a little more distant than ‘trust us’ and go to the DeSmog “deniers” database for bad actors. (Note: DeSmog’s smear-list encyclopedia is back! First, there are so many great thinkers and influencers on the list that the new ‘majority’ has been identified. This is my entry. Second, many people not on the list are fed up and want a non -admitted alarmist.)
The list of Skeptical Science continues in the comments that begin: “Sometimes a commenter’s task or tagline can also provide clues. If it has anything to do with the fossil fuel or mining industry, anything written should be read with a sizable grain of salt..”
And finished: “The reaction through the “laughing” icon on a serious topic such as human-caused climate change may be accidental (unlikely) or a sign that the commentator is not sufficiently (wanting) to grasp or accept the scientific findings on the topic (probably)..”
The comment was harsh. Here are some.
Randall Utech: There are thousands of independent thinking individuals (geologists, geophysicists, astrophysicists, engineers, meteorologists, physicists, chemists) who practice science. They are not paid to confront the alarmists, but simply see climate science (immature science) as unsettled. Questioning the pervasive climate narrative is exactly what scientists need to do. Unfortunately for many masses with little time to investigate themselves, the deck is stacked against them because what in most cases spreads propaganda from your side of the arena.
You call yourself a scientist but you ignore the basic purpose (of) science which is scientific debate. By silencing opposing viewpoints, you are no longer a scientist or providing scientific information, you are providing propaganda or misinformation. We want to have a full discourse on this topic. If you negate viewpoints that don’t match yours, you’re not a scientist, you’re a manipulator; you don’t care about facts and only about the point of view you want to present.
Rob Bradley: So tell all of us on LinkedIn how to think and what to believe? Stay vague and ask for half-truths and strawmen/women (above) and try to get critics to ‘put their hands down’?
I have participated in many debates on LinkedIn with climate alarmists to great advantage for me and for other readers. Why not go ahead, Skeptical Science, and list the valid points of the CO2/climate optimists?
Discussion of enhanced distribution of greenhouse effect, time series data on extreme weather, saturation effect, government failure in efforts to address market failure, role of adaptation rather than mitigation (futile)? And the ecological problems of wind, solar, and batteries?
Where is the middle ground, Skeptical Science? If you say no, I take a break.
My comment attracted 60 replies.
Daniel Gruenberg: “Skeptic Science was founded by a partisan cartoonist, author of the famous 97% consensus article and king of climate disinformation.”
James Phillips (retired geoscientist): “This has got to be the most ridiculous post I’ve seen on LinkedIn since I joined 10 years ago. Any independent thinking real scientist should ignore this complete propaganda ‘climate religion’ post.”
Hans Wolkers (science journalist): “It’s great that skeptical science has a patent on the truth and does not want scientific debate or critical thinking scientists. I think 97% of readers agree and believe this good statement?
Robert Ballantyne: “The consensus is that scientists living in government agree to ‘hide the decline’.”
Jim Ligon (geophysicist): “Oh, I know! If I agree then I’m good. If I ask as a real scientist, I’m really bad. This is not science, but a religious dogma similar to the inquisition. So how do you know the climate alarmists as a hoax? Printed rubbish like this.”
Graeme Morrison: “I love the rebuke of people ‘just asking’ as insincere. It makes me laugh.
Alexis Pilotelle: “Imagine publishing a post similar to “quantum physics” or “organic chemistry” instead of “climate science”, taking one theory in the field as an absolute no-to-will challenge the truth. Not only will this create a backlash but it will create suspicion very claims made are only acceptable theories Science skeptics need to go back to basics and understand what science is instead of pushing propaganda.
Skeptical Science, blood, join:
Yes, our post seems to be getting angry because of the many comments that show warning signs to watch out for! Some people just like it when others don’t know what the warning signs and red flags are.
Also note that some comments with baseless accusations and ad hominem attacks on Skeptical Science and our team have been deleted and others will be deleted without notice. It’s our page, so our rules apply.
Ad hominem? This is what the non-alarmist camp does every minute of every day. From the above exchange one Jim Hunt can only question the confidence to participate in the physics science debate. Funny how we amateurs can spot the weaknesses of alarmist arguments (and why WUWT, for example, is the world’s leading climate website.)
A final comment
“Skeptical Science” is the same name as the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. A ploy for fools, in this case to draw in doubt to try to show that alarmist science has settled and, in fact, science. No, climate models and climate physics are the opposite of established.
Let’s see if Skeptical Science makes another appearance on LinkedIn. It is up to 458 followers. And see that this organization will only prepare entries about the best ‘skeptical’ arguments. With that middle ground, maybe we can have a real debate.
related
