By Robert Bradley Jr.
“Let’s see if Skeptical Science makes another appearance on LinkedIn. It is up to 458 follows. And see if this organization will simply prepare an entry on what ‘skeptic’ arguments are the best. With that middle ground, maybe we can have a real debate.”
On LinkedIn, the alarmist Skeptical Science posted:
Somewhat surprisingly for what is regarded as a network of professionals, climate science misinformation is getting shared on LinkedIn as well. Here is a list of some signs to be on the lookout for when reading posts or comments related to human-caused climate change or global warming:
Read the list here, but their pitch is little more than ‘trust us’ and visit the DeSmog database of “deniers” for the bad actors. (Note: DeSmog’s smear-list encyclopedia has backfired! First, there are so many excellent thinkers and influencers on the list that a new ‘majority’ has been identified. Here is my entry. Second, many folks not on the list are upset and want their non-alarmist views recognized.)
Skeptical Science’s list continued in a comment that begins: “Sometimes a commenter’s job or tagline can also give a clue. If there’s a relationship to anything having to do with the fossil fuel or mining industries, whatever is being written might need to be read with a suitably large grain of salt.”
And ends: “Reactions via the „laugh“ icon on serious topics like human-caused climate change could either have happened accidentally (unlikely) or be a sign that the commenter doesn‘t quite (want to) grasp or accept scientific findings on the topic (quite likely).”
The comments were harsh. Here are some.
Randall Utech: There are thousands of independently thinking individuals (geologists, geophysicists, astrophysicists, engineers, meteorologists, physicists, chemists) practicing science. They are not paid to confront the alarmists but merely see the climate science (a relatively immature science) as unsettled. Questioning the all-pervasive climate narrative is exactly what scientists should do. Unfortunately for many of the masses with little time to investigate on their own, the deck is stacked against them due to what is in most cases pervasive propaganda from your side of the of the arena.
You call yourself scientists but you disregard the fundamental 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 of this topic. If you negate a viewpoint that doesn’t conform to your view, you are not a scientist you are a manipulator; you care nothing about reality and only about the viewpoint you want to provide.
Rob Bradley: So tell all of us on LinkedIn how to think and what to believe? Stay vague and invoke half-truths and strawmen/women (above) and try to get the critics to ‘lay down their arms’?
I have engaged in numerous debates on LinkedIn with climate alarmists to great profit for me and for the other readers. Why not go ahead, Skeptical Science, and list the valid points of the CO2/climate optimists?
Talk about the distribution of the enhanced greenhouse effect, time-series data on weather extremes, the saturation effect, government failure in the quest to address market failure, the role of adaptation instead of (futile) mitigation? And the ecological problems of wind, solar, and batteries?
Where’s the middle ground, Skeptical Science? If you say there is none, I rest my case.
My comment attracted 60 replies.
Daniel Gruenberg: “Skeptical Science is founded by a partisan cartoonist, author of the famous massively debunked 97% consensus article and is the king of climate disinformation.”
James Phillips (retired geoscientist): “This has to be the most ridiculous post I have seen on LinkedIn since I joined 10 years ago. Any true scientist with independent thinking should disregard this complete propaganda ‘climate religion’ post.”
Hans Wolkers (science journalist): “Great to see that skeptical science has a patent on the truth and doesn’t want any scientific debate nor critically thinking scientists. I guess 97% of readers agree and believe these wonderful statements?”
Robert Ballantyne: “Consensus is among scientist living on government largesse that agreed to ‘hide the decline’.”
Jim Ligon (geophysicist): “Oh I get it! If I agree then I am good. If I question as a true scientist should do then I am bad. This is not science it is religious dogma on par with the inquisition. So how do you know climate alarmists are a hoax? The print garbage like this.”
Graeme Morrison: “I like the rebuke of people ‘just asking questions’ as insincere. It made me laugh.”
Alexis Pilotelle: “Imagine publishing the same post with “quantum physics” or “organic chemistry” instead of “climate science”, taking one theory inside the field as the absolute not-to-be challenged truth. Not only this would create backlash but it would make highly suspicious the claim made by the only acceptable theory. Skeptical science should go back to basics and understand what science is instead of pushing propaganda.”
Skeptical Science, blooded, joined in:
Well, our post seems to have hit a nerve based on the many comments exhibiting exactly the warning signs to be on the look-out for! Some people just seem to prefer that others do not know what these warning signs and red flags are.
Also note that some comments with baseless accusations and ad hominem attacks against Skeptical Science and our team have been deleted and any others will be deleted without notice. It’s our page, so our rules apply.
Ad hominem? That is what the we in the non-alarmist camp endure every minute of every day. From the above exchange one Jim Hunt could only question my credentials to engage in the physical science debate. Funny how us amateurs can pin down the weaknesses of the alarmist argument (and why WUWT, for example, is the world’s leading climate website.)
Final Comment
“Skeptical Science” is a name akin to the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. A ploy to fool, in this case to draw in doubters to try to show that alarmist science is settled and, in fact, science. Nope, climate models and climate physics are the opposite of settled.
Let’s see if Skeptical Science makes another appearance on LinkedIn. It is up to 458 follows. And see if this organization will simply prepare an entry on what ‘skeptic’ arguments are the best. With that middle ground, maybe we can have a real debate.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
War is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength. Skeptical Science is in that class.
I agree Tom, however, any discussion or heaven forbid debate about climate science is a win for us sceptics of the IPCC orthodoxy, as the truth about organized misinformation and outright lies perpetrated by alarmists will finally register with the public particularly those with a technological bent or training.
My recent
<strong>Climate science a </strong><strong style="color: rgb(119, 119, 119);">Sceptical review</strong><span style="color: rgb(119, 119, 119);">' </span>now out as an eBook on Amazon provides details of the real climate variables, their uncertainties and why there is no climate emergency that we are all told to worry about. It is important to note that for 50 years ecological cranks and environmentalists have been making predictions of immanent climate doom, but all of these have failed to materialize. This business of climate alarm is being generated for political purposes, and to gain scientists support they are being funded to the tune of billions annually. These people won't admit to any climate errors on their part or solve the issues, as that would ruin the case for human-generated climate change along with their funding and prestige. So, they continue to fool us with faux crises, and tell as many lies as they can get away with to achieve their goals. The public has been trained in recent centuries to believe and trust in science to help mankind grow and prosper with modern technology. This trust is now being squandered by immoral UN/EU elitists in the business of climate change alarmist, as if warming by a few degrees is a real threat instead of a benefit, and that CO2 the gas supporting all life on Earth is somehow a pollutant and must not be allowed to increase. What utter tripe and foolishness. This needs to be called out by all reputable scientists, as illiterate falsehood.Science has thus been manipulated and usurped to confuse and alarm people to vote for repressive fossil fuel mitigation policies tosave the world’, but actually the setup in the UN Paris Agreement only penalizes the Western developed democracies and underdeveloped nations. Whereas, the `developing’ nations led by China and India who now amount to 2/3rds of all global industrial development don’t have to conform to these voluntary reforms, so are growing their economies rapidly using fossil fuels whilst ours declines- clever politics on their part, stupid on ours.
Enough of this climate and unreliable weather dependent renewables nonsense, or we really will be in a climate economic crisis of our own making, with no benefit to anyone in our once proud and politically dominant western democracies.
Sorry about the second paragraph typo nonsense, it meant to say my recent eBook `Climate Science a Sceptical Review’ is out on Amazon if you want details of what the real science from experts is saying.
Bottom line is that the public is finally waking up to what this is going to cost them. Governments confiscate wealth through a number of means. The primary mechanism is inflating their currency so as to squeeze wealth from their populace while at the same time reducing the value of their debt. But they are getting a lot leas juice from the inflation squeeze so they need a new mechanism to extract the wealth. Carbon (energy) taxes are the mechanism they have chosen.
They obviously don’t know the meaning of “skeptical science” which is to be skeptical. And their fans can’t see how obvious that is and how stupid is that title.
It’s the sun, not the moon.
— The Taming of the Shrew
We have always been at war with oceana.
I wonder how many know the statement is from 1984.
SKS is the epitome of kindness, respect and tolerance. / sarc
Im not sure that zoomers are falling for this anymore..
Point of note: i have tried to link some wuwt articles on Youtube in response to several videos about Co2/temperature. After posting they disappeared after a few minutes. Then i posted the link to the website. Also gone within a few minutes. Naming names like Lindzen, Happer et al also disappeared. Then i did a trick. I reversed the letters of the WUWT website in a post. THAT remained. So, what do you think. Am i crazy to assume foul play by Youtube? Accusations of misinformation perhaps? A list of ‘bad actors’ like Anthony Watts et al? Weird..
Mr. nally: Here’s an experiment- post something from SKS on youtube and see if it’s removed. I’d do it but I don’t post videos.
Google owns YouTube. They control the algorithms that do the moderation (censorship). Everything must be in The Narrative, nothing outside The Narrative. The Narrative is everything.
I havent previously noticed any removed content if it didnt contain insulting language. There seems to be a list of names/websites that supposedly spread ‘disinformation’ according to whomever. I recall Anthony saying something about him and Heartland Institute as being part of that. But i still watch Heartland institute videos on Youtube. Also, worth noting that the Youtube channel i posted it on had a climate sceptic as a guest so it couldnt have been the channel’s moderator.
Everything within The Narrative, nothing outside The Narrative, nothing against The Narrative.
Seems I’ve read or heard something familiar before.
The Narrative has always been at war with the Science.
– Ministry of Truth
A guest blogger Leo Goldstein posted an essay here early in 2020 during the beginning
of covid mess. The piece focused on a utube video Medcram 34 which was about
chloroquine and how it was effective in treating the virus. That video was removed
very quickly but it was put back up a year or so later. They also removed a video about a scabies
outbreak in a nursing home in early 2020 that used ivermectin to treat it and an interview
of a daughter of one of the residents described how none of the residents that took it
got covid but the staff which didn’t take it got covid and were around the residents who
didn’t. A few years later it was put back up. How many people died because of
that censorship?
The sensorship was very clear during Covid. It is not so clear in regards to climate issues. However, since the EU has made ‘misinformation’ the biggest thing i seem to notice more shadowbanning and blocking efforts by the likes of Youtube. Linking articles on WUWT in Youtube get removed no matter how balanced they are. WUWT must be on a ‘black’list.
After I read the thread here on wuwt on the medcram34 video I sent
links to a lot of people including some in medicine. The ones in
med had to keep it on the sly or risk losing their license. I heard
back from most and one who was in a large hospital let me know
that everyone in their unit took the hydroxy from the floor cleaners
all the way up to the top. It worked 100% but they couldn’t prescribe it,
or even talk about it beyond their unit as it was made illegal.
Millions died, which is why they are redoubling their efforts at censorship throughout the Western world. They MUST cover up the crimes that were done. If the magnitude and extent of these crimes are uncovered, the people responsible would not sleep another night in safety.
I have found that any post with an external link, especially to a ‘denier’ website will be removed. They seem OK with links to other youtube videos though, so I have posted links to Tom Nelson’s channel with some success. Other than that, I have referred to scientific papers by title and author, and instructing the reader to look on the internet with those search terms.
Thanks. I also have noticed Tom’s Youtube channel links seem to work ok.So, if a channel is allowed on Youtube the links will work fine. I wonder what will happen to the Heartland institute if Youtube no longer will allow it. But, i think even Youtube is rather reluctant to ban channels like that. Funny though, the stuff on WUWT runs parallel to the Heartland institute. I must check if the Heartland institute website link works on Youtube..
Update. Well, the link to the Heartland Institute was also removed within a few minutes. It’s pretty clear now.
Update again: videos on the Heartland Institute Youtube channel linked remain!
Here is a tip: the censorship algos do not deal with images well. Take a screenshot of the like/comment//etc and post that. It will likely survive even though it is nor directly linked.
Can you post on Rumble?
No idea. Im not on Rumble.
You should try it. Rumble is free, and there’s no censorship.
I have had exactly the same experience with YT. Perfectly factual, inoffensive posts correcting alarmist lies and nonsense get deleted immediately. It’s infuriating.
SkS is infuriating. They only wish to “win” any argument and have no interest in learning, or even tolerating, different opinions or ideas or understanding. Unfortunately one encounters neophytes who are just starting out using the same sentence constructions here and there. They are educated by the better informed quite quickly but I suspect many go off in blithe ignorance and some likely join JSO or Greenpeace and such.
A couple years ago I got sucked in by the website name. I was looking for alternative sites to WUWT just to keep my thinking balanced. It appeared to be hosted by a high school science teacher with writings for “young people”. I made a couple of challenging comments strictly questioning science and eventually got accused of ad hominem and booted. It was weird.
got accused of ad hominem and booted.
It’s like so many modern “protesters” – their behavior has a tendency to drive people away.
One of the tricks the modern left has perfected is to declare that anything they disagree with is hate speech.
And Far Right, or Hard Right. Yet the MSM never calls AOC, Omar, Sanders, Warren or Whitehouse Hard Left. They are always just progressives.
Keitho,
With respect, you could have stopped right there. When their only goal is to win, the ends always justify the means.
Yet they are, to all intents… a bunch of LOSERS. !
will be deleted without notice. It’s our page, so our rules apply.
…… and there we all were on here, thinking they were champions of free speech.
SKS website is owned by John Cook, the guy with a Ph.D in “cognitive science” who authored a 97% consensus study. To get such a degree one only needs to know how to make complete bullshit sound authoritative in your thesis.…
If nothing else good comes of AI perhaps it will teach us not to be so enchanted by fluent language. Search for content and meaning. Then the sunlight naturally falls on the bullshit so it can be seen for what it is.
Pretty sure that’s an honorary Ph.D. I doubt he actually went through all the schooling and such.
Maybe he should psychoanalyze himself in reference to his Nazi dress-up pics.
Exactly! To be clear, according to Wikipedia:
Skeptical Science (occasionally abbreviated SkS) is a climate science blog and information resource created in 2007 by Australian former cartoonist and web developer, John Cook, who received a PhD degree in cognitive science in 2016.
Cook is famous for cooking statistics. His infamous 97% consensus study is so riddled with statistical and mathematical errors, it’s astonishing that anyone took it seriously. That he started a website called “skeptical science” is one of the greatest ironies in modern history. He is the opposite of a skeptic about climate science. He is one of the chief zealots of the climate zealots, religiously devoted to a dogma lacking supporting evidence, and impervious to persuasion, and to facts and evidence refuting his deeply-held beliefs.
“climate zealots, religiously devoted to a dogma lacking supporting evidence, and impervious to persuasion, and to facts and evidence refuting his deeply-held beliefs.”
Sounds like RG !
“Cognitive Science”. Like “Climate Science”, if science is in the name, it isn’t.
Remember when Cook accidentally allowed public access to a secret portion of his site, intended only for “The Team”, which showed himself in full SS regalia?
I used to look at their web site- which says at the top, “This website gets skeptical about global warming “skepticism”.”
So, I asked if it’s OK to be skeptical of people who are skeptical of global warming skepticism?
They warned me that any more comments like that and I’d be locked out. So, I haven’t gone back.
Dang, that’s funny. Guess they don’t have a sense of humor either.
The irony is that the channel is in fact not sceptical of climate sceptics. They are downright hostile and want to stop them entering a debate. Again, newspeak at work..
Not sure if they still have it- but they used to offer a comic book – something about how to talk to your crazy uncle, the climate denier.
Talking down on people supposes superior knowledge. Because the Truth is clear you cannot take those blind to it seriously. Sorry, correction:’overwhelming evidence of human caused climate change’. This is how you trick even (or especially) smart people into believing a falsehood. They consider themselves so smart that they immediately know the Truth without actually examining the issue. Most of my friends and family are like that. They havent looked behind the curtain. I usually make the reference to the Wizard of Oz and see how it lands..usually not well
Yep . . . a BIG typo in the name of the organization that is discussed (actually, raked over the coals) in the above article, corrected here for everyone’s convenience:
“
SkepticalDogmatic Science” . . . a failing website destined for the dustbin of history.The comments that were deleted are likely more interesting than the ones they allow.
The top photo looks like a commercial for Toby Keith’s song: Red Solo Cup
I’m tempted to say that photo may be representative of the majority of those that actually use the “Skeptical Science” website as a source of information, but I’ll avoid doing so. 😉
Them explicitly saying that they delete stuff, especially the way they do, I think will not go over quite the way they think it will.
When I was still a greenhouse effect believer, and starting to change my mind about it, I came upon the “Skeptical Science” site. But it was immediately troubling how they were belittling “climate deniers” with their cartoons, and it just had the effect of raising a red flag in my mind. Not a very serious, scientific attitude. I made up my mind that I couldn’t believe them without cross checking everything they posted. And now, I wouldn’t waste my time with them.
Good thing that Mikey and Gavin aren’t belittled in cartoons on this site.
20 years ago, I went over the 800-year lag of CO2 following temperature change argument with some of them and on De Smog website where I asked them what drives the temperature increase for the 800 years and what started it before CO2 allegedly kicks in their answers were so pathetic that I knew THEN they had nothing but bullcrap to offer that is why I realized I am dealing with people who are conned on the CO2 is a supermolecule crap.
It has never changed for me since then as I can see how the CO2 sniffers are profoundly enmeshed in pseudoscience and behaves as a cultist which is why they have no credibility and why I no longer give a shit about what the IPCC says about their play station modeling scenarios orgasms which deserved scorn and derision as they are profoundly stupid and dishonest as it is blatant propaganda clearly done to support the increase in governmental power.
The Logarithmic and doubling factor of CO2 makes clear it is an insignificant warm forcer at the 420-ppm level thus not worth the stain on paper which is why I now mostly concentrate on the goodness of CO2 to the life of the planet, the expose of numerous failed predictions and the lack of any climate emergency development all else is a waste of time to address leftists who are mentally ill and stupid as hell as they show their ignorance and their reliance on a bucket load of fallacies that exposes their inability to debate/discuss honestly and rationally.
Who on the Earth today does not have a stake in fossil fuels, and having them readily available at affordable prices?
Well, that would be the alarmists, even though they actually have far larger “carbon footprints” than just about anybody else on the planet. Those private jets and 30 thousand square foot mansions consume one helluva lot of fossil fuel. But hey, never mind, they’ll just pay a pittance to plant some trees and claim that they’ve offset their carbon emissions.
Just like rich patrons in Medieval Europe who paid the Catholic Church indulgences to wipe away their sins (which mostly involved screwing the little people). Of course, the indulgences were used to pay for fantastic perks including mansions, lands, and income for the wealthy bishops, archbishops, and cardinals who forgave the “sinners”, all for a piece of gold, and then then turned around and excoriated the sinful little people for not being pure enough because they weren’t coughing up those fat indulgences.
Eventually in Europe during the Enlightenment the little people finally figured out how they were getting screwed by the rich including their church leaders, and thus the Reformation happened, revolutions happened, and eventually democracy happened, at least in part of the world.
The little people aren’t so little anymore with today’s average standard of living. People aren’t going to impoverish themselves to satisfy the whims of the rich warmunists.
DeSmog’s “Climate Disinformation Database” is part of this discussion. What if those who are not listed who feel their contributions qualify all wrote in to them? Given that the requests will likely be ignored, maybe a new list should be compiled somewhere.
Are you here? https://www.desmog.com/climate-disinformation-database/.
The very existence of the list shows the low regard they have for debate and research which is why De Smoggy organization isn’t worth visiting.
Robert Bryce, Sterling Burnett (Heartland Institute), John Christy are some of the people on that list.
And Clauser, Curry, Dilley. Oh, and ( for crying out loud) Freeman Dyson!
Eschenbach, Happer, Hayden.
Pielke, Koonin, Legates. Svensmark, Stossel, Spencer. And Anthony Watts of course. An impressive list i must say.A list of recommendations i would say.
The Who’s Who of Climate Science.
Woof, 758 entries!
Damn, I’m not on the list either. It is obviously a piece of disinformation itself. And I only recognized a few of the names on the list – what must those other folks have done to be so honored?
Skeptical Science is for retards.
By the retards, for the retards.
And harboured by the pro-terrorist loving University of Queensland. Home of some of the most despicable propagandists.
And of the retards.
I’m surprised they needed to delete the posts themselves. The founder of Linkedin is a far left loon who limits what people can post that goes against the narrative.
I used the peruse the Skeptical Science website. It did not take long to recognize no real information, insights, data, or knowledge were there to be considered or gained.
A post (not a direct quote):
Global warming is real! We have a theory (aka models) and an experiment (Tyndall).
Just an aside, Tyndall’s experiment did not involve IR. His detector was a thermoelectric pile.
A post (not a direct quote):
As the atmosphere warms, it expands. At the greater altitude everything is colder so the black body radiation is reduced.
Too many things wrong with that to list.
What was the final turn-off was the excessive number of disparaging insults offered to anyone not part of the cabal who tried to discuss things. Ad hominem fallacies rule there.
I’m very sceptical about skeptical science – it’s full of hubris filled flat earthers who just seem to want to discredit superbly competent people, just because they won’t take the knee to the AGW hoax, or it’s net zero scam
It would be interesting to see if they’d admit just what parts of the “97% Consensus” or “The Settled Science” ‘Skeptical Science’ is actually skeptical of?
“Skeptical Science” is a demonstration of misleading packaging. Sure, a good scientist is skeptical, but when you look into “Skeptical Science”, real skepticism is rebuked in every possible way.
Government may dictate “THE TRUTH” and what you must BELIEVE, but Science discovers the facts and what we KNOW. – Greebo
Also, remember that Political Science is the science of manipulating the masses not discovering facts or accumulating knowledge for the betterment of humanity.
BTW, They may need to be reminded that science once admitted the use of Consensus and it did not end well. Galileo was ‘debunked’ and convicted on consensus. Semmelweis was discredited when he proposed that physicians should wash their hands after dissecting cadavers and before delivering babies. Science either follows Scientific Method or it is NOT SCIENCE. It does NOT depend on which or how many degrees or accolades one has.
Galileo was convicted of two things, teaching heliocentrism as proven fact. In his day, it wasn’t. And insulting the Pope.
By Galileo’s time, most scholars, including most scholars in the church, believed that heliocentrism was probably correct.
Be very skeptical of a “science” that has to have an adjective in front of it.
In 2007 I decided to write my first article on climate change for my former newsletter ECONOMIC LOGIC.
I was skeptical about the “science” of 100 year climate predictions. I still am.
I discovered a new website calle Skeptical Science, which I assume was perfect for skeptics like me
In my first comment there, I remarked that we loved global warming here in Michigan. We still do.
I checked back a few hours later to see if anyone responded to my commet.
My comment had disappeared. And I was blocked from future comments.
I guess it was a crime there to honestly say you enjoyed a warmer climate.
The human caused climate catastrophe meme is, and has always been, a fraud. A fraud designed to panic people into accepting a political change they would not if they were thinking rationally. There is zero evidence supporting their theory, they simply push climate models and scream we are all going to die – unless. The models they push have been consistently wrong. The only thing these models prove is the utter lack of understanding the modelers have of the climate of the earth. Over the years these pseudo scientists have been raking in quite a bit of money from the politicians that believe they will benefit from this bilge.
SKS … the refuge of propagandists that parade about in Nazi uniforms. Those photographs will live forever!
That’s really funny given that many scientists who work in coal and petroleum have listings on LinkedIn.
No wonder they seemed a bit surprised, they were’t lecturing ill educated children.