Home
Chats
Groups
Pages
Events
From the "About" page on our website, our context here: "Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens with climate change denial. "Skeptics" vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that purports to refute global warming. Skeptical Science gets skeptical about global warming "skepticism". Do these arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?"
On the terms "skeptic" and "denier," from the MOOC "Denial101x" definitions: "Genuine scientific skepticism is a good thing. In fact, it’s the heart of the scientific method. Genuine skeptics don’t come to a conclusion until they have considered the evidence. In contrast, people who deny well-established science come to a conclusion first, and then discount any evidence that conflicts with their beliefs. That means that denial and skepticism are polar opposites."
Comments expectations:
Please refer to the comments policy posted on our website which applies to our MeWe page as well: https://skepticalscience.com/comments_policy.shtml
Minimum requirements here:
* Be courteous and respectful.
* No "link only." If you provide a link, please explain why you think it worth following.
Local differences to Skeptical Science website comment policy:
Remarkable claims require solid evidence. Meanwhile, we don't have a lot of time to waste on chasing red herrings and we're definitely not here to provide a framework for publishing falsehoods.
* If you make a comment including a controversial claim (one that disagrees with established, accepted scientific consensus in connection with anthropogenic climate change) you will have to supply a citation of and link to peer-reviewed literature directly supporting your claim. If you are unable to do so, you're arguing in the wrong place and your comment will need to be deleted.
* We may use a failed comment as an opportunity for public education but in general it's better not to waste everybody's time with unfounded assertions. For examples we use, it is not our intention to humiliate anybody but commenters do "own" their writing here.
* On our website, there is a "three strikes and you're out" policy. Because of time limitations that's not the case here. We may work faster. If you fail to comply with our policies, your comment may be deleted and you may be banned without prior warning. We may still employ your comment to point others reading our page to the relevant science based explanations on Skeptical Science.
* Perhaps even more than on "mainstream" Skeptical Science comment threads, here for purposes of efficiency we'll relentlessly steer readers in the direction of reputable, peer-reviewed scientific literature. We won't engage at a detailed level with explanations or arguments hinging on wrong personal beliefs.
On the terms "skeptic" and "denier," from the MOOC "Denial101x" definitions: "Genuine scientific skepticism is a good thing. In fact, it’s the heart of the scientific method. Genuine skeptics don’t come to a conclusion until they have considered the evidence. In contrast, people who deny well-established science come to a conclusion first, and then discount any evidence that conflicts with their beliefs. That means that denial and skepticism are polar opposites."
Comments expectations:
Please refer to the comments policy posted on our website which applies to our MeWe page as well: https://skepticalscience.com/comments_policy.shtml
Minimum requirements here:
* Be courteous and respectful.
* No "link only." If you provide a link, please explain why you think it worth following.
Local differences to Skeptical Science website comment policy:
Remarkable claims require solid evidence. Meanwhile, we don't have a lot of time to waste on chasing red herrings and we're definitely not here to provide a framework for publishing falsehoods.
* If you make a comment including a controversial claim (one that disagrees with established, accepted scientific consensus in connection with anthropogenic climate change) you will have to supply a citation of and link to peer-reviewed literature directly supporting your claim. If you are unable to do so, you're arguing in the wrong place and your comment will need to be deleted.
* We may use a failed comment as an opportunity for public education but in general it's better not to waste everybody's time with unfounded assertions. For examples we use, it is not our intention to humiliate anybody but commenters do "own" their writing here.
* On our website, there is a "three strikes and you're out" policy. Because of time limitations that's not the case here. We may work faster. If you fail to comply with our policies, your comment may be deleted and you may be banned without prior warning. We may still employ your comment to point others reading our page to the relevant science based explanations on Skeptical Science.
* Perhaps even more than on "mainstream" Skeptical Science comment threads, here for purposes of efficiency we'll relentlessly steer readers in the direction of reputable, peer-reviewed scientific literature. We won't engage at a detailed level with explanations or arguments hinging on wrong personal beliefs.
Share the link:
