Next time you hear some climate data…


Next time you hear someone say something like, “2009 was one of the hottest years on record”, this is how to respond.

“Prove it.”

Keep asking them to prove it until they can.

If they produce a paper published in a reputable science magazine, ask whether that article was peer-reviewed by a skeptic, or whether it was rubber-stamped by a global warming believer. Point out that thanks to emails from so-called climate scientists that are hard evidence of conspiracy to defraud the public, you cannot trust anything peer-reviewed.

Then go through the study. Ask simple questions for every assertion. “Where is the data? How can we trust the data? How can we trust the math? Where is the study proving this statement of fact?” etc, so on and so forth.

If the Global Warming believers want to hoist on to the American public shackles and chains, they had better be able to prove it convincingly and simply, in peer-reviewed articles by climate skeptics and preferably people outside the climate science field, people who have degrees in real sciences like physics, mathematics, computer science, and chemistry.

Prove it.


2 Responses to “Next time you hear some climate data…”

  1. demo kid Says:

    Amazing! You’re quite critical of climate change data — which is available to the public and has not been falsified, by the way — but you don’t quite start up with the critical thinking when it comes to creationism, which is not supported by data in the slightest.

    Be consistent, Jonathan.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      Demo kid, you didn’t understand.

      The data that has been published, or rather, the interpretation of the data, has been found suspect. The authors of the studies admitted that they manipulated the data. The authors have never released the original data, and in fact, admitted that they would rather destroy it than release it. They have also never published their methods.

      If you think that this debate has anything to do with my views on things, you’re being absurd. The fact of the matter is that I could be a space alien on heroin and the fact that the scientists committed broad violations of the scientific method will not change.

      Please, you do not support your arguments by arguing ad hominem. That is called a logical fallacy for a reason.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: