Debunking Academy: Taking on Pseudoscience and Anti-Science
This is a part of a series on debunking misconceptions about climate science.
New Debunking Series
Why “debunking?” We’ll get to that in a moment. But first, welcome to Global Warmth’s new series attempting to shine a light on clear distortions of science, logic, and critical thinking. Also, we will attempt to dispel the notion that some things are known when there remain uncertainties that science still needs to resolve. One particular website which has flagrantly worked against science, has promoted pseudoscience, and has even taken an anti-science stance is a site called Skeptical Science. Even cordial discussions made on their blog have been removed, because they cannot dispute the facts contained in them—facts which threaten their viewpoint. I once pointed out that we currently live in an ongoing Ice Age and that global warming is thus good, ironically making their website artwork (penguins gawking at a green sprout in the snow) into a positive statement. They are not open to discussing facts which pop their bubble of carefully constructed lies. That site is run by a Mr. Cook whose climate “consensus” article is frequently cited by presidents, and political groups like NASA (yes, political because they remain a part of the government and make anti-science statements in support of their bosses in Washington).
But when Cook, et al, proposed consensus after throwing out a majority of their data in order to achieve their desired percentage, they were committing fraud to achieve that consensus. So, even the basis of their claim is a sham—a fraud inside of a logical fallacy. The layers of lunacy get even wilder, because their fraud inside a logical craziness is in support of a lie inside a lie—that global warming is bad and caused by equally bad carbon dioxide (both of which are dead wrong).
Where possible, we will attempt to accomplish real debunking. Ironically, so many people claim to debunk one idea or another, but only merely offer alternative hypotheses which are insufficient to achieve debunking. With real debunking, a person needs to establish beyond a doubt that the original thesis (that which is to be debunked) is impossible. No longer will they be able to get away with sloppy or muddy thinking, attempting to pass off alternative possibilities as real debunking. For an example of real debunking, check out my article on another website, “Debunking — A Lost Art — Greater Need for Critical Thinking.”
As always, if I make a mistake or fail to live up to the claim of debunking, I welcome input with facts. As in science, such criticism can only help to make an argument better, or to require a retraction, and possibly even an apology. All constructive comments are welcome. Ad hominem logical fallacies are not. I’m personally in this to help improve the discussion. Anyone who merely wants to thump their own chest and bolster their own ego at the expense of others is not welcome, so be forewarned, and empowered to do the right thing.
Real debunking requires more work. It requires critical self-analysis—the type that good scientists use in preparing their own hypotheses for publication and for review by other scientists. The objective here is to achieve debunking through critical thinking, careful analysis and facts. We will not allow the expedient of unsupported dismissiveness used by so many who think they know it all and are above the work required to prove their point.
In the weeks ahead, I will be taking one fallacy or misconception after another and shining a light of critical thought and careful reasoning to show that there is much more to consider than the UN, NASA, Obama, Michael Mann and Al Gore seem willing to do. I look forward to your comments.
This article was originally published 2016:0406 on GlobalWarmth.org.