All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter

Whenever someone asserts that a scientific question is “settled,” they tell me immediately that they don’t understand the first thing about science. Science is never settled. Dr David Deming

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:

Friday, 4 July 2014

Be skeptical. But when you get proof, accept proof.

ACS put the above quote (in quotes) into google and got 682 hits. It is attributed to Michael Specter.

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

Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives described by Amazon:
In Denialism, New Yorker staff writer Michael Specter reveals that Americans have come to mistrust institutions and especially the institution of science more today than ever before. For centuries, the general view had been that science is neither good nor bad—that it merely supplies information and that new information is always beneficial. Now, science is viewed as a political constituency that isn’t always in our best interest. (bold added)
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.

The "consensus" scientists have (inter-alia):
On Michael Specter's quote, FQTQ note:
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:
Jeff Davis, on writes
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.)

So, the Climate Sceptics, the Global Warming Realists are skeptical. But when they get proof,  they accept proof. Now it is up to the alarmists, the Global Warming Nazis to accept the proof. Time to put the hoax and the billions in grant money behind them



  1. Journalists like Michael Spector with no real education in the world of science would have benefited by tuning into the recently broadcast PBS series "Cosmos: A Space Time Odyssey" hosted by Neal deGrasse Tyson. Most viewers can retain a better understanding of the world and lose inherent bias with education, certainly worth the time spent.

  2. Nice to be able to write to you.
    I want to let you know of my new book for your perusal.
    'The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science'
    Thank you.
    Historical Climatologist

    PS My website is

  3. Thanks for the comment, Tim via Martha. The website omitted above is -

    This blog has previously written of your new book here -

  4. The "scientific process" was never followed. A theory should be subjected to critical/skeptical review. It should be verified by testing. In the case of global warming, models were developed which contained the elements of the theory, mainly CO2. The development sample was the period of warming from 1978-1998.
    CO2 was so weak that it's warming had to be tripled using the assumed feedback of water vapor. (They neglected to note that clouds and precipitation offset that feedback) When the models were tested by trying to predict temperatures in an independent sample starting in 2000, they failed to reproduce actual temperatures.
    The models forecast temperatures to keep rising, while actual temperatures remained flat till the present day. Since they failed, the theory is brought into serious question. It is clear that global temperatures are governed by natural forces not included in the models..


All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!