Skeptic Politics beta: under development

As stated in my last post I’ve been developing a resource intended to both analysis the politics of the climate chance skeptics and provide counters to their arguments in much the same way Skeptical Science does for scientific arguments.

The working title for this project is Skeptic Politics.

The beta can be viewed by clicking on the image below:

It may be that the title is too similar to John Cook’s Skeptical Science, so thoughts on this welcome. I’ll be contacting the Skeptical Science crew to let them know what I’m doing. Also, I may see if they might be interested in publishing some of the content from Skeptical Politics.

The site is divided into two main sections

  • Arguments – looks at the various arguments made by sceptics segmented into conspiracies, financial, political and sociological arguments
  • Players – a database of the major players. I’m staring small, with Australian and New Zealand skeptics. The intent is to profile their activities, and highlight their individual politics.

This is the very early days, so I’m giving readers here a preview in order to seek feedback and suggestions.

About these ads

5 thoughts on “Skeptic Politics beta: under development

  1. Damian says:

    Looks good to me. And I concur with the suggestion to have a comments policy and to debunk without repeating the myth itself. Look fwd to seeing how it comes along!

  2. malky957 says:

    This is a great idea – the political element of this argument often get overlooked in favour of the science. And it really isn’t about science – it’s about the Right and their activism on behalf of the fossil fuel industry. One minor quibble – please oh please edit your work before posting, mate. Quite a few typographical errors in this one – just looks better if they are not there.

  3. john byatt says:

    This would appear to be a huge task that you are undertaking Mike, looking forward to what may prove to be an excellent resource, I don’t really follow the He said-she said debate but it now appears that it is becoming the backbone of the sceptics arsenal, having very few peer reviewed papers to put forward,

    have been in debate with one dr wes Allen, his latest appeal was on the so claimed missing hot spot, all he could reference was “Richard Lindzen says it should be there but is missing because the surface temperature is too high because urban heat has been inadequately removed” (very confused as to what he is talking about)

    Never mind that lindzen has no paper that can support that claim and in light of the berkeley reconstruction it is pure nonsense,

    I take john Cook’s advice to heart, do not repeat the myth just destroy it with actual citations from peer reviewed papers.

    rgds

    JB

  4. Neil Harris says:

    I like the idea of this very much – even if the arguments are likelier to more ‘slippery’ than those challenging the science. For this reason I think it would be very important to have a comments policy and moderation that encourages comments to be on topic and based on evidence – much the same as that over at Skeptical Science.

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      Agree mate – the idea is discuss what the arguments are, and if possible “reclaim” them.

      And yes, it will be very much evidence based.

      Politics is about values – which in the end is what the climate debate is really about.

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 772 other followers

%d bloggers like this: