Skeptical Science and the logic of debunking

Even if i am not a certified scientist i do spot errors in reports written by so called experts and scientists. Skeptical Science is a webpage that claim to have the science firmly on their side. What i have read there, so far, is nothing but politicized-something, dressed up as science. I will not use time on that, i just call that page a hoax-page or hoax – for short and don’t use it and anyone citing anything from that page will not be taken serious by me.

But somebody is taking that serious, and they have basically documented how dishonest the people behind that hoax is; http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2012/03/23/secret-skepticalscience/

http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/skepticalscience-rewriting-history/

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/9/7/michael-mann-and-skepticalscience-well-orchestrated.html

And this one is a particular important one, showing how bad and how low they are, something that also further proves my point about Skeptical Science as a non scientific webpage; The Extremist join the debate at last.

Further comments from me on their science is therefore not necessary.

Instead i will spend a little time discussing Skeptical Science overwhelming use of resources, time and money, when it comes to debunking anyone they disagree with. The word “debunk” should actually say it all. When did you hear a real scientist use the word “debunk” when talking about a colleague they disagreed with? Scientists discuss and argue, but debunk?

What about the logic of  “debunking”? When you use huge piles of money to debunk peer-reviewed papers and only manage to come up with half  truths and a lot of assumptions?

But that is not the worst, the worst is when they, and remember, they claim to have the science on their side, go about debunking the person that are speaking up and telling people what the science really say and what it means. Then, of course, it’s no longer science, it’s not even honest, in fact it’s not even logic.

But here’s the good part, if Skeptical Science have debunked it, you can be sure it’s good science – because who would spend time and money on people, reports and science, to prove it’s wrong, if it’s bad? And that, in short – is logic!


Dr. Willie Soon Guest Comment: ‘Is What I Say Beyond the Boundaries of Reasonable Discussion?’

Willy Soon   Google søk

Greenpeace known corrupt organization has the nerve to critizise Dr. Willy Soon, impressing when we know Greenpeace has been kicked out of India because of it’s illigal activities.

Wikipedia has been corrupt and useless for years because of the Web-farming and fake cross-references to hoax and fake science articles.

Desmogblog.com – basically the same as Skeptical Science, political activist page stripped from any science.

We can only conclude, when they have that amount of time and money to spend “debunking” the man and not his science, his science is good as gold! Lucky for us the alarmists are too stupid to understand this basic logic .. I use it when i discuss with alarmists, when they can’t find error in my posts, they attack me personally, than i know i am right. Live – peer – review – process!

Related; The Merchants of Smear


Roald J. Larsen (Top of page)  –  Google+  –  Roald J. Larsen (Blogspot)  –  Twitter  –  Facebook  –  Skype: roaldjl2009

Advertisements

One thought on “Skeptical Science and the logic of debunking

  1. Pingback: How to falsify man made global warming 2 | Roald j. Larsen

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 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s