Intended to add to /info/en/?search=Skeptical_Science#Reception_and_motivation First try reverted as incomplete, see History. Probably should try next in Talk first.

First try: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Skeptical_Science&oldid=605912917

Climate scientist Roger Pielke Sr. wrote in 2011 that Skeptical Science "is not balanced in the presentation of the existing research findings in climate science" and criticized the blog for "disparag[ing] those who disagree with them." ^[1]

Short summary: most of the criticism of this blog is (naturally) in the blogosphere, and mostly fails WP:SPS. There's a decent (if histrionic) summary at

• The Truth about Skeptical Science -- which seems unlikely to be accepted as a WP:RS, but appears to be generally accurate, if overheated.
  • Probably should leave this out of the post, it will just irritate Sousa & co.

There are criticisms available from Pielke St & Patrick J. Michaels, both rebutting criticism at SKS. Pielke Sr tried to engage, got frustrated, gave up. Criticism by Richard Tol centers on the Cook et al. 97% Consensus paper, and better handled there. Also see Pielke Sr's critisism of the survey: [1]