Today i would like to start with the first post in a very long series :
my complete comments on two texts written by Belgian professor Philosophy of Law Frank Van Dun (FVD) titeld science vs consensus in which he criticizes the work of IPCC and a smaller piece in Dutch, written two months later, titled 'klimaathysterie en mediamanipulatie' ("climate hysteria & media-manipulation").
I've split the whole thing because of the lenght of the texts, and to give myself the time to write part-by-part. Remember i'm doing this in my free time.
Both texts contain a criticism which, at least in my opinion, says very little about IPCC or climate change, but a whole lotta 'bout the way of thinking of a sceptic. FvD makes a lot of fallacies someone with a degree in philosophy should not make.
In a certain way, the first text reminds me of the Freeman Dyson scepticism Michael Tobis recently commented about.
As both text were listed on FvD's personal university-webpage (*), i do consider them to be (non peer-review) publications and will comment and judge them that way.
edit : FvD's claims (correctly, i just noticed, the webpage does mention this ) that those texts are drafts and/or "occasional material". He also writes the text in english was a preparation for a closed discussion. I'm awaiting an answer wether he wants to debate this in public too. Which i think could be interesting.
(*) only later on the hosting was transferred to rothbard.be
actually the second text was transferred after i already made a quick forum rebuttal of it, on a forum read by half of the members ofrothbard.be. I can only guess why thereafter they didn't mind to transfer material they know is flawed. Neither did Fvd (whom i sent an email to inform him about my response) find it necessary to make any changes in the piece before it was transferred.