I received another email from the ScottishSceptic and since he's changed tact I'll use the opportunity to write a few words about the difference between the "skeptical of science" community's war-footing and the world of scientists with their commitment to constructive learning.
But first Scotty's email:
12:35 PM - February 6, 2013
from: Michael Haseler
That's the whole point, it's not my list - it was drawn up to see if we agreed enough with each other to form an association.
I'm not even sure if I agree to it - I think I was so pleased to have something people agreed to that I didn't care what it actually said by the end.
Anthony and the other names were not involved - the people who contributed were just ordinary posters - those who eventually joined the Scottish climate and energy forum were all reasonable people and most work in professional jobs in science and engineering and take great exception to being called "deniers".
They are increasingly hassling me to spend more of my own time trying to do something about this name calling.
The Sceptic View (Rev. 0.5)
"The Sceptic view is the final statement published 6th May 2012 prepared after a discussion on the blog Scottish Sceptic by a number of regular contributors to that blog as well as others who participated from Wattsupwiththat , Bishop Hill and other blogs. It was an agreed statement by those participating in the discussion. As such it represents the most authoritative statement of the views of Climate "Sceptics"/"Skeptics" as of May 2012."
It's your turn to demonstrate where my claims are mistaken. Not with threats, but with a learning process.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Science is about learning!
Learning is about sharing evidence, trying to sort through the chaff to get at the kernel of knowledge.
It's about appreciating that we all have more to learn.
It's about setting aside our biases and trying to be objective.
It's about allowing the evidence to carrying the day.
It's about appreciating that when the evidence outweighs our conceptions, even if it hurts our feelings, we get over it, smarter and more capable for the pain.
A rational skeptic ...
... is skeptical of their own convictions.
... appreciates that they themselves can be wrong.
... looks at all the available data, information.
... accepts superior evidence and is willing to put their own disproven notions aside.
... embraces the learning process, even with it's difficult ego battering moments.
... doesn't automatically suspect that experts, they disagree with, are corrupt.
It's followed by a talk by him, where he explains the basics of what this global geophysical greenhouse gas experiment, we are running, is all about.
ScottishSceptic, you "skeptics" keep claiming you want to debate the issue. Well let's do it!
If you ( plus pals) want to draw attention away from your list, well OK. I invite you to watch this video of Schneider's informative talk. Mark down what he says that you believe is misleading or false, please list time-signature, so we can all follow along.
Share with us your critique of Stephen Schneider's talking points and the evidence he shared. Present your arguments and evidence, let's be rational about this.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
But real skeptics still accept a preponderance of carefully examined evidence even when some elements of a complex systems problem remain unresolved—and do not pretend that when there are loose ends some well-established preponderances don’t exist—that is beyond skepticism to denial—or political convenience often.
So a skeptic questions everything but accepts what the preponderance of evidence is, and a denier falsely claims that until all aspects are resolved we know nothing and should do nothing—often motivated by the latter.
If you deny a clear preponderance of evidence, you have crossed the line from legitimate skeptic to ideological denier.