Ajax wrote on Sep 2
nd, 2013 at 2:01pm:
# wrote on Sep 1
st, 2013 at 9:01pm:
Ajax wrote on Sep 1
st, 2013 at 10:31am:
...
There not opinions by some part time climate enthusiasts like over at sceptical science blog.
Substantiate your assertion. Quote one posting on
http://skepticalscience.com/ that isn't based on peer reviewed science.
...
Hey dude at the end of every page on sceptical science blog there is a section where people send in their comments.
I don't know about now but last time I had a look many comments where against the article or the information being presented.
Which supports your assertion how?
Ajax wrote on Sep 2
nd, 2013 at 2:01pm:
But I have heard that if sceptical science is losing out right they delete the comments.
Further unsubstantiated assertion substantiates your earlier unsubstantiated assertion, in what way?
I've no doubt that some posts are deleted. That can be because the post is abusive, defamatory, SPAM or other legitimate reasons. The site naturally attracts denialist SPAM. Your assertion that it happens only "if sceptical science is losing out right" is unsubstantiated.
Ajax wrote on Sep 2
nd, 2013 at 2:01pm:
Now what happen to my threads, why are some being closed....???
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1375841990/129#129Ajax wrote on Sep 2
nd, 2013 at 2:01pm:
And why are others being modified......???
As I understand it, some words are verboten. The forum software automatically traps them. Alternatively, you could be imagining things.
Ajax wrote on Sep 2
nd, 2013 at 2:01pm:
Seriously gentlemen the moderator should not be biased but neutral.
The moderator needs to know a bit about what they're moderating. One of the duties of moderation is to protect readers. Allowing your climate science denial to go unchallenged would violate that responsibility.
Ajax wrote on Sep 2
nd, 2013 at 2:01pm:
So how is it that this forum has alarmists running the Environmental section.........??????
Definitions of "alarmist" generally refer to unjustified, unwarranted or excessive alarm. How is reporting the views of
the vast majority of the best qualified alarmist?
As you've not been able to substantiate your beliefs,
this might ease your concerns:
Quote:Skeptical Science (occasionally abbreviated SkS) is a climate science blog and information resource created in 2007 by Australian blogger and author John Cook. In addition to publishing articles on current events relating to climate science and climate policy, the site maintains a large database of articles analyzing the merit of arguments commonly put forth by those involved in the global warming controversy who oppose the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change.
...
After reading a 2007 speech by US Senator James Inhofe who claimed that global warming is a hoax, John Cook created Skeptical Science to be an internet resource that examined the scientific support of the most common arguments against mainstream scientific opinion. The site currently maintains over 160 articles addressing the merit of common criticisms of the scientific consensus on global warming, such as the claim that solar activity (rather than greenhouse gases) is responsible for most 20th-century global warming. Each article, referred to as an "argument", first presents a quotation from a prominent figure who made a direct claim regarding global warming, then follows with a summary of "what the science says".
Rather than fully qualifying each claim, the site focuses mainly on challenging it by citing counterexamples for why it is incorrect, and structuring these examples into an overall rebuttal of the original claim. The site primarily gains the content for these articles from relevant peer reviewed scientific papers. Many articles have been translated into several languages, and are split into up to three levels of technical depth. Rather than active advertising or media relationships, Cook has focused on structuring the site primarily for optimization in search engine results.
The home page of the site also features blog posts by a number of regular and guest contributors, which may be new rebuttals of a certain argument or simply the blogger's view on a relevant climate news item. Like the rebuttals, the blog entries tend to hold a consistent tone that the scientific opinion on anthropogenic global warming is generally accurate.
...
Skeptical Science has become a well-known resource for people seeking to understand or debate climate change, and has been praised for its straightforwardness. Marine biologist Ove Hoegh-Guldberg has described it as "the most prominent knowledge-based website dealing with climate change in the world", and The Washington Post has praised it as the "most prominent and detailed" website to counter arguments by global warming skeptics. In September 2011, the site won the 2011 Eureka Prize from the Australian Museum in the category of Advancement of Climate Change Knowledge.
Cook is trained as a solar physicist ...
Skeptical Science is affiliated with no political, business, or charitable entity.
Forum
Pages: 
Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming (Read 10233 times)
