What is the instrument by which skepticism is pursued?
Peer review.*
Peer review is literally the instrument by which scientific skepticism is pursued.
I already explained this to you.
Stephan Lewandowsky is Professor of Cognitive Psychology, but only at Bristol University. Psychology is defined as the study of the mental disorders of rats. “Brains” too, he adds [pictured].
*“Skeptics” often claim the answer is “science itself,” or “the scientific method.” Unfortunately there is no such thing, as half-scientist half-historian Naomi Oreskes has already explained (p. 80) to you.
Did You Know?
Stevan comes from a small village in Wisconsin where they say the word “pursued” instead of “um”!
CLIMATE NUREMBERG 
I would recommend some stones and sticks as good instruments for pursuing. Like my brother Willy and I used when pursuing squirrels in the huge pine trees at the backyard. Knock them over by a good hit and let the dog do the kill. Delicious if you nail them to the cowshed and let them dry in the sun.
Not sure if this is the way to handle scientific skepticism.
Besides that: Prof. Lewandosky mentions that there are climate change studies going on that happen outside of the frames of the con-sentient Climate Change teachings. Some of them don’t even say a word of the consensus science that lies behind all natural causes. Such studies is nothing but metaphysics, because natural causes are parts of the consensus model and can’t exist without it.
Observations and measurements are meaningless without the interpretation and translation by the rules given by the consensus model and thus they are metaphysical in the same way as ghosts and gnomes are metaphysical beings ; the observations and measurements are not applicable in the consensus model, i.e. the real world.
A common mistake from the skeptic side is to use unadjusted data, thereby making any correct interpretation impossible or ridiculous.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“What is the instrument by which skepticism is pursued?”
This “Gretchenfrage”‘s been doing the rounds for some time and, thankfully, the SkepticalScience crew has addressed the issue in it’s usual non partisan, objective, “let’s get the truth out there once and for all” way that’s very much become the “Gold Standard” for Climate Science hangers on.
According to PhD candidate John Cook from the University of Western Australia, over a hundred Climate Scientists were surveyed in a multiple choice format questionaire and the findings were in Cook’s words “Quite Surprising!” he continued “only 2% agreed that ‘peer review’ was the appropriate instrument, the most popular answer being ‘Clarinet’ at 96%.”
World leaders will be meeting again next Thursday to decide what, if any, action should be taken off the back this new concensus position from the World’s biggest brains (headwise).
LikeLiked by 1 person
KBO,
You omitted to mention that “Pan Pipes of The Andes” came in as second choice for many climaticians as the preferred instrument for non-Gershwin based studies. The Big Lewandowsky is a master on the ol’ pipes as well you know. He and Naomi were once in a band together (Touch Me I’m Hard) which tickled the charts before the lamentable “Wisconsin Incident” brought them crashing to earth in a flurry of old sardine cans and used hairnets.
LikeLiked by 1 person