Validating Claims Re: the Environment
How many times have you wondered about the scientific evidence behind the many competing claims that are made concerning climate change and other environmental issues? Now there is a team of fact-checkers whose job is to debunk claims and present the unvarnished truth.
How they go about their work is particularly interesting. I hope you’ll check it out.
Oh Dear Craig, I fear I can’t share you enthusiasm for this “coterie of climate scientists” claim to be objective “fact checker’s “.
Advocates they certainly are, possibly even with scientific qualifications, but objective analysts they are certainly not !
Essentially the group exists to critique those who challenge accepted climate change doctrines. ( The only critiques of climate scientists are always favourable).
I realize you might argue that since the pontifications of climate scientists are never wrong, it’s only natural the group finds to discover no problems with articles by climate scientists.
Hmmmm….with the greatest of respect, I would suggest this group are not “fact checkers” but simply a thinly disguised (although with the best of motives) cheer squad !
At the risk of offending you, I think this sort of activity is counter-productive.
If the group had begun by debunking a popular, oft repeated but inaccurate myth such as “96.7 consensus among regarding climate change”, then the group may have gained some creditably ourside of true believers.
I respect, (and even applaud) your frank admission that being an advocate you feel no obligation to be dispassionately objective.
I’m not a scientist or engineer, but I hope I possess a modicum of knowledge relating to analysis methodology. The core of any analysis must be an impartial, unemotional quest for data to be equally evaluated.
My analysis may not be exciting or a inspiring, but if I get it wrong, I cost my clients and myself money. If I persist in getting it wrong, I’m out of business ! (Fortunately, over the last 30 years I must be right more often than wrong because I’m still in business).
The instances of the analytical methods employed by this group are certainly not “scientific” and rely upon “opinion” rather than any real attempt at impartial evaluation.
I guess point I’m making is do we need another cheer squad, preaching to the converted ?
In answer to the question: what do we really need? I would only say that it’s policy-making based on sound science. I don’t think I’m alone in the universe and making that suggestion.