EDITOR’S NOTE: ‘Skeptical Science’ (SS) is a website dedicated to informational warfare against the claims of climate skeptics. It was founded by cartoonist John Cook, who is responsible for the falsified claim of a 97% consensus of scientists on climate. ‘Skeptical Science’ is a purposeful misnomer, and is rarely skeptical. It’s posts usually consist of mischaracterizing climate realists data and evidence driven arguments against alarming climate claims, and instead push the climate alarm narrative; scientific data is rarely used in its attacks on skeptical claims. Rob Bradley of Master Resource took exception a to an unsolicited post on LinkedIn by SS that read in part:
Somewhat surprisingly for what is regarded as a network of professionals, climate science misinformation is getting shared on LinkedIn as well.
His response is below.
From Master Resource 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, bloodied, 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.
I quit LinkedIn for the very reasons cited above. I was suspended three separate times for making factually true statements. Each suspension was based on three “violations”, so nine counts in all. Six of the nine were about the Mann-made global warming fraud, the others all about Covid excesses. The UN’s corrupt WMO can say anything it wants, but proving them wrong is strictly forbidden. I never once used an ad hominem, nor did I ever use any vulgarity. I was suspended for speaking truth to power.
I gave up LinkedIn after the third suspension. It’s not worth the effort, fighting back against the socialist behemoth of Microsoft-LinkedIn.
For the record, I was a LinkedIn buddy with Greg Whitestone. During my rather brief tenure, Greg was banned for life because he dared to tell the truth and cite bona fide science. I consider myself as having been in good company.