Michael Specter (born 1955) is an American journalist who has been a staff writer, focusing on science and technology, and global public health at The New Yorker since September 1998.
He has also written for The Washington Post and The New York Times. (wikipedia)
In 2009, Michael Specter authored a book titled
His book seems not to cover the man-made global warming debate, however the non-science of the "consensus" scientists has surely contributed greatly to the the public's mistrust of the scientific community.
- pushed a false consensus - a political, non-scientific term;
- suppressed data sharing, also non-scientific;
- suppressed dissenting papers;
- tried to get journal editors fired;
- ignored the temperature hiatus;
- fudged temperature data;
- intimidated broadcasters;
- hid behind a technicality to avoid sharing data;
- released the fraudulent hockey stick graph;
- claimed "The climate of the future is what we make it...,"
- Eliminated records with negative correlation....etc...etc...
That quote by Michael Specter is brilliant for describing what true skepticism should be. In the media machine today, the term “skeptic” is often applied to people who accept pseudoscience because they are “skeptical” of mainstream science: “vaccine skeptics,” “climate skeptics,” “pharmaceutical skeptics,” and so on. The term gives these people (and other similar groups) a bit too much credit. Generally, they are ignoring proof and evidence. Michael Mann, a climate scientist from Pennsylvania State University, summarized it best when he said, “Denying mainstream science based on flimsy, invalid, and too-often agenda-driven critiques of science is not skepticism at all. It is contrarianism … or denial.”
A true skeptic is willing to look at all of the scientific evidence available and is willing to analyze it without bias. When the evidence says something, a skeptic can accept the outcome before them…until new evidence is presented.Looking at the scientific "proof and evidence" available, rather than FQTQ's 'pseudoscience,' we can see that the rise in atmospheric Carbon Dioxide follows the rise in global temperature (link)
After temperatures rise, on average it takes 800 years before carbon starts to move. The extraordinary thing is that the lag is well accepted by climatologists, yet virtually unknown outside these circles. The fact that temperature leads is not controversial. It’s relevance is debated.While it only needs once, the Man Made Global Warming (AGW) hypothesis has been falsified many times. As Einstein said: “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
Googling "AGW falsified" brings up 536 results including:
- AGW - a falsified hypothesis - http://tiny.cc/7g8fix
- Man Made Global Warming Falsified - http://tiny.cc/xn8fix
- The Scientific Method - AGW Falsified - http://tiny.cc/aq8fix
- AGW Falsified: NOAA Long Wave Radiation Data... - http://tiny.cc/3t8fix
- AGW Falsified by Real Data: http://tiny.cc/018fix
When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data. There was already much evidence of this seven years ago, when I was writing my history of the scare, The Real Global Warming Disaster. But now another damning example has been uncovered by Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science, showing how shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world’s most influential climate records, the graph of US surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). (See also WUWT.)