Share this...



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.