Evidence does not interpret itself, it requires an interpreter. Even scientific measurements must be interpreted. This post at “Watts Up With That” clearly exposes the role of presuppositions in what is considered data, how observations and data are interpreted, and what is considered an acceptable interpretation.
The Skeptic Society referred to in this post is not referring to climate “skeptics”. It is referring to one group of committed atheists who have the view of science that only explanations that fit a materialistic metanarrative (chemistry and physics only) qualifies as scientific.
(Having recently listened to Michael Ruse at Univ of California Riverside, it is clear that these folks have great faith. More faith than necessary to beleive in Biblical Christianity. But they can believe what they want, however irrational it may be, given that faith/trust in the God that gave us the Bible is necessary to do science at all, whether acknowledged by them or not.)
So, from this post we learn that Dr. Michael Mann speaks at the TAM and uses arguments that Anthony Watts finds foolish because the audience would disagree with him about the hockey stick. I find the hockey stick argument unconvincing and not in line with the best available science. (Peter Gleick is also a popular speaker at atheist conferences, such as SkeptiCAL in California.)
But then, Mr. Watts goes on the ad hominum attack against “creationists” for using arguments they know are false. This is a very broad accusation. So I must ask…
Mr. Anthony Watts, what argument have I used that I know to be false?