Cepticismo: em ciências naturais, a atitude científica

Fred Singer: “Scientists should all be skeptical”, foi a mensagem-chave que o deão dos cépticos do aquecimento global de origem antropogénico deixou perante uma assembleia na Universidade do Estado do Colorado (CSU), quando respondia, em conjunto com outro céptico célebre, William M. Gray, às questões dos presentes numa sessão de grilling, na terminologia anglo-saxónica. Estes dois senhores, de credenciais científicas incontestáveis e com as provectas idades de 87 e 82 anos de idade, submeteram-se não obstante às perguntas "hostis" de uma assistência que veicula o que ainda é o mainstream publicado no domínio das "alterações climáticas" (aka "aquecimento global").

Deixo aqui alguns excertos das intervenções de ambos de acordo com o relato deste artigo:

Singer and Gray spoke to a sometimes unruly and tense audience in a packed CSU auditorium in attempts to convince them that most climate science is "hokum" and "bunk."

Fear about climate change, Singer said, is a "psychosis" because global warming is natural and harmless.

Presenting almost no data while being peppered with questions from some of CSU's other atmospheric scientists and faculty, the pair emphatically denied the climate has warmed significantly in recent decades and said rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have only positive implications for humans.

Any doubt about that, Gray said, has been sewn by error-ridden climate models from government-supported scientists and parroted by the United Nations and the mainstream media.

“Stop worrying, don’t worry,” Singer said. “Nothing you do will have any effect on the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere. Even if it did have an effect, it won’t affect the planet.”

E, de seguida, a crer no relato do jornalista, talvez a heresia das heresias:

In responding to criticism from a member of the audience that Gray and Singer can’t get their research published in scientific journals, Gray said, “If you want to see where the real research is going on, you’ll look on the blogs.”

“There’s no scientific review on blogs, it’s all a matter of opinion,” the audience member said. “Peer-reviewed scientific journals are the gold standard for science.”

“No, they aren’t,” Gray said. “They are not the gold standard. Why do you think they’re the gold standard?”

“You don’t vote in science,” Singer said, criticizing peer review.