44:
wrote in 2011 that
Skeptical Science "is not balanced in the presentation of the existing research findings in climate science" and criticized the blog for "disparag those who disagree with them."
83:
94:
82:
centers on the Cook et al. 97% Consensus paper, and better handled there. Also see Pielke Sr's critisism of the survey:
57:
49:
Short summary: most of the criticism of this blog is (naturally) in the blogosphere, and mostly fails
78:, both rebutting criticism at SKS. Pielke Sr tried to engage, got frustrated, gave up. Criticism by
75:
41:
30:
First try reverted as incomplete, see
History. Probably should try next in Talk first.
50:
61:
17:
67:
Probably should leave this out of the post, it will just irritate Sousa & co.
79:
35:
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Skeptical_Science&oldid=605912917
27:
28:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Skeptical_Science#Reception_and_motivation
95:
My
Response To The Skeptical Science Post “One-Sided ‘Skepticism”
64:, but appears to be generally accurate, if overheated.
34:
74:
There are criticisms available from Pielke St &
53:. There's a decent (if histrionic) summary at
8:
60:-- which seems unlikely to be accepted as a
87:
7:
24:
58:The Truth about Skeptical Science
1:
114:
97:, September 15, 2011
76:Patrick J. Michaels
40:Climate scientist
26:Intended to add to
105:
98:
92:
42:Roger Pielke Sr.
113:
112:
108:
107:
106:
104:
103:
102:
101:
93:
89:
73:
48:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
111:
109:
100:
99:
86:
71:
70:
69:
68:
46:
45:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
110:
96:
91:
88:
85:
84:
81:
77:
66:
65:
63:
59:
56:
55:
54:
52:
43:
39:
38:
37:
36:
31:
29:
19:
90:
72:
47:
32:
25:
18:User:Tillman
80:Richard Tol
33:First try:
51:WP:SPS
62:WP:RS
16:<
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.