Quote of the week #32 – hockeying up a zinger

Quote of the week #32 – hockeying up a zinger“. Anthony Watts offers up a cherry-picked interview excerpt from climatologist Dr. Michael Mann (the full interview on The Morning Call is good reading):

[Anthony dropped this part: I would say that all good scientists are skeptics. Many who deny the existence of climate change I would not call skeptics, because their skepticism is one-sided.] “I would call them contrarians or, frankly in some cases, climate change deniers,” he said. “I’m a skeptic. When I see a scientific claim being made, I want to see it subject to scrutiny and validation.”

Scientists aren’t allowed to describe themselves as “skeptical!” That’s reserved for Anthony!

Instead of telling others to look in the mirror perhaps he should crack open a book (or a web page). Dictionary.com defines skeptic and offers this illuminating quote (italics mine):

Skeptic does not mean him who doubts, but him who investigates or researches as opposed to him who asserts and thinks that he has found. [Miguel de Unamuno, “Essays and Soliloquies,” 1924]

Sounds like the normal approach of scientists to me. And their “skepticism” has led to some entertaining debunking of statements made by Anthony and his associates.

What “skeptical” post by Anthony would be complete without a bit of Climategate innuendo and a suggestion to readers that they pester a journalist? Check.

One thought on “Quote of the week #32 – hockeying up a zinger

  1. The ridiculous claims placed in the 2007 UN IPCC AR4 report is a case in point; why did it take 3 years before scientists spoke up about them? Where was the scientific skepticism there? There is no way it should have taken 3 years for these claims to be criticized. It was only until after Copenhagen failed did they speak up. I guess it was safe by then. So much for the reputation that scientists are skeptics, I think this showed that they are also opportunists.

    [Good scientists are skeptics. The IPCC Reports are massive compilations that are of astoundingly high quality. Can you image a comparably-sized report with so few proven errors? Not sure why you think Copenhagen “failed” as 110 countries have made new climate change commitments because of it. You are following a narrative that only exists in your head. – Ben ]

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s