The authors of the title blog, in this post and elsewhere, want to make the reader believe that science works in the same way as the parliamentary democracy, namely, that:
- Personal opinions matter
- Final truth is established by a vote, therefore the opinions getting more votes are more correct
- Arguments matter, causing the decision-makers to change their opinions
Therefore, their approach to "proving" the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hypothesis is to invent arguments that are allegedly invoked by their opponents to disprove it, then, by refuting these arguments, they allegedly reaffirm the AGW dogma. Needless to say, none of these arguments, whether correct or erroneous, bear any relevance to the subject discussed, once we use the scientific approach ...
Now, science advances hypotheses, and tries to disprove them based on available experimental evidence, with a single piece of unexplained evidence sufficient to refute a hypothesis. Only those hypotheses that can survive experimental scrutiny make it to a theory. This approach is called the scientific method.
However, the AGW hypothesis has been refuted by experimental evidence, once and again. Therefore, pretending that nothing has changed, and that the IPCC climate reports still represent the current state of climatology as science, as opposed to religious/political activism, can only be described as non-scientific.
We therefore submit that "Sceptical Science" should be renamed "Dogmatic Faith".