Swiss Academy Of Sciences: Skepticism Is Scientific – Unless It Comes From Climate Skeptics

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

Pro-Clim, a forum of the Swiss Academy of Sciences, has recently put out a news release titled: The Arguments of the Climate Skeptics. Below you’ll find the news release translated in English by yours truly. Hat tip to NoTricksZone reader John Patagon.

The Swiss Academy is apparently unswayed by the change in direction recently adopted by the Royal Society in Britain. Pro-Clim is sticking to activism and dogma, at least until further notice. Comically it claims that skepticism is scientific, but only if it does not come from climate skeptics. More on this below.

The news release that follows serves to remind warministas that the science is settled and that arguments against “climate change” are to be dismissed. So keep the faith! The release also links to a pdf file, which provides frustrated warministas with arguments they can use against skeptics in public debate. Here is the release in English:
===================================================================

The Arguments of the Climate Skeptics
Climate Press No. 29

Skepticism is the basis for scientific work, as scientific findings must be reproducible and stand up to rigorous examination. On the other hand, the skepticism coming from climate skeptics is problematic because they accept scientific proof only selectively.

The arguments from climate skeptics are numerous, but often contradictory. The facts behind climate change are challenged in more or less complex ways.  These are arguments that have been either refuted already, or simply are not scientifically plausible when examined more closely – but are always put forth anyway. In the meantime answers and detailed explanations for each point can be called up from websites at any time. A look at the collection of arguments allows them to be categorized into groups. Arguments made by climate skeptics almost always fall under one of the categories. The described categories will help you orgnanize the hundreds of arguments.

===================================================================

To me it seems strange that a scientific society would take sides instead of remaining neutral. I especially like their claim “the skepticism of climate skeptics is problematic because they accept the scientific proof only selectively“. What they are saying here is that skepticism becomes unwelcome and dismissible if it threatens their dogma.

When this belief becomes a guiding principle of a scientific society, then it has truly succeeded in reducing itself to a joke.

Sorry, but you don’t get to accept or dismiss skepticism based on whether you like it or not. If you don’t like skepticism because it’s “selective”, or “problematic”, then science is not your field.

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

14 responses to “Swiss Academy Of Sciences: Skepticism Is Scientific – Unless It Comes From Climate Skeptics”

  1. Ed Caryl

    It was just that attitude that first tipped me off that there was “something rotten in Denmark”. (Sorry Bjorn! But I like your book, except for your belief in CO2 warming.)

  2. DirkH

    The theological justifications become more complicated as AGW becomes more indefensible. As a result, public approval will continue to plummet like the temperatures. Nearly all weather stations in the US with a longer history show cooling:

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/11/18/what-trend/

  3. Juraj V.

    Switzerland is ready for another NIWA-like gate. I spent once some time digging into their official temperature record.
    http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/v2zki81.png
    Homogenization process increased the warming trend twice.

    Considering the Academy, are they that stupid, bought, have invested into the green bubble or they are just sheeps? Beeeeee!

    1. DirkH

      Juraj; i once looked up the Armagh observatory in Google maps. It’s definitely not a rural station; the town grew around it! (Even though there is some greenery around the observatory itself)

      1. Juraj V.

        Yes but it the station is in Observatory park and the surroundings are told not to change much since 1770s. Anyway, Armagh is in good relation with CET and North Atlantic and its 1979-now linear trend is exactly as MSU trend for given 2.5×2.5° grid.

  4. Patagon

    Juraj,

    The whole of the Alps needs a very close look at the temperature record.
    Look at the histalp data set http://www.zamg.ac.at/histalp/ it invariably colds the past through their homogeinization process. Raw data is imposible to get, but the claim is that the Alps have warmed more than everywhere else

    1. Juraj V.
  5. R. de Haan

    If we are lucky they will have to dig the Swiss Scientific Academy out of the snow this winter.

    These guys all have a Swiss Cheese for a brain.

    It smells and it’s full of holes.

  6. Nonoy Oplas

    It is basic discipline in natural science, I think, that data and theory must conform with each other always. If data contradicts theory, the latter must give way. It reverts back to being a mere hypothesis, to be subjected to tests and more tests to either validate or totally invalidate. The AGW claim is a hypothesis and remains a hypothesis, never a theory.

    1. DirkH

      Nonoy, i read your post about Greenpeace. Unfortunately, i can’t comment on your blog – the captcha won’t show for me.

      Anyhow – tell Greenpeace to go over to China and protest there. You can’t let them sabotage development in the Phillipines. I would send them all to an island without electricity so they can experience the good ecological life.

  7. R. de Haan

    In the case of AGW based science, the data is manipulated.

    Therefore we have to compare the AGW claims with real world observations (looking out of the window)

    I know, weather isn’t climate but what about the irrefutable consensus among the AGW establishment that CO2 and only CO2 is responsible for UNPRECEDENTED warming of our atmosphere? And if this is true, why do they have to fiddle with our temperature data sets and lie between their teeth about, well … everything?

    Here is the hot, hot, hot, very reality of the NH for the next days:
    (Remember, the official winter still hasn’t begun)
    EUROPE http://wxmaps.org/pix/temp4.html
    ALASKA USA http://wxmaps.org/pix/temp2.html
    EAST ASIA http://wxmaps.org/pix/temp5.html

    In fact, even cooked up warm anomalies have become scarce on all the wxmaps including the SH.

    This picture entirely defies the AGW claims and makes our planet even cooler than the wxmaps show.

  8. R. de Haan

    Global Frigging Warming
    “All we need now is to switch off the heating of all the MPs who still believe in global warming and we might start seeing some sense – impossible though that might seem. Better still, strip them naked, couple them up in a chain gang and have them paraded round Parliament Square, chanting “global warming is nigh”, until they drop from hypothermia or exhaustion, whichever comes sooner”.

    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/11/global-frigging-warming.html

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close