LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksAll 97% of Climatologists who state that AGW is a reality are sociopaths? And here was I thinking most of them are in politics.Originally Posted by free-man
All 97% of Climatologists who state that AGW is a reality are sociopaths? And here was I thinking most of them are in politics.
"Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense." - Chapman Cohen.
I think Monbiot is still a believer, rather a zealot, but he has been forced to backpedal a bit.
He became quite sarcastic in his blog, which about sums the man up.
I've got a pretty simple rule of thumb when it comes to getting an initial fix on some of the serious issues of our day. generally there are two sides to these debates.
Generally one side refuses to engage with the quiestion of the other side. And this side is the side with something to hide.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
lol Ibis the fact that you're so dismissive of Monbiot all of a sudden is a sign of the infighting that is now seeping its way into the green front.
Side A: We believe there are serious economic issues to be addressed.
Side B: Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Side A: I don't have to dignify that with an answer.
Side B: Clearly Side A is refusing to engage with our questions, and has something to hide. We will now congratulate ourselves.
Never let the best be the enemy of the good.
No .It's not all in the IPCC. Can you find out how many of the 30,000 are climate scientists and see if that exceeds the number of climate scientists in the IPCC? I see no evidence that the 30,000 are even scientists, as opposed to people with art or business degrees.
I'm sure the media will gladly publish it themselves, so eager are many outlets to spout a "sceptical" line.
What if you're wrong? Are you so certain that because of the leaked emails of a small number of scientists, that the entire body of evidence for AGW is fake? Will you be proud of any role you play in this entirely political game if climate change does turn out to be an avoidable disaster? Real sceptics are motivated by science not a desire to avoid taxes.
Yes, he has rightly admitted how damaging this is to the AGW case: barely at all by comparison to the title of this thread. Did you read Monbiot's article?
"But do 'climategate' revelations justify the sceptics’ claims that this is “the final nail in the coffin” of global warming theory? Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
...
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
This is pretty interesting about the CRU, posted a couple of months ago.
They really are a shoddy lot.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpmrGoi2JRo"]YouTube- Climate Research Unit lost data[/ame]
Akrasia,
I don't usually bother getting involved in this debate but this is a matter of science. It's also critically important for the future of humanity.
Realistically speaking, how science works is this: you propose something, a theory. Other people try to break it by replicating your work. That's how science works. Even environmental science. If you make it hard for them to do that, the conclusion could be drawn that perhaps that scientific work is not as rigorous as it should be.
As this is critically important for our future too I don't believe any data should be held in a walled garden. If Phil Jones did not want to have to go to the trouble of releasing the data via FOI requests - obviously not considered vexatious by people who wanted to critically assess the work - then he should have just released it up front. It would have saved him a lot of time. I mean, it stands up to scrutiny, right?
Anything else isn't really that scientific. We're not - or should not be - talking about patented pharmaceuticals here. We are talking about behaviour that will have a direct impact on the future of humanity. Hiding or withholding the data is plain wrong. It is thieving your future and mine.
Since these revelations concern merely four scientists our of thousands, there is no reason to think that he should not remain a "believer".
Are you now claiming that pro-AGW scientists never answer the questions and claims of deniers and sceptics? (there is a difference)
In fact, every objection to AGW tends to be laboriously refuted by scientists, only for the deniers ignore the response and invent another hole in the theory. The whole idea is to create an artificial scientific debate in order to delay political action. I know this because deniers make incessant reference to taxes!
"But do 'climategate' revelations justify the sceptics’ claims that this is “the final nail in the coffin” of global warming theory? Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
...
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
It's a great term if you want to make someone sound crazy.
Its akin to the language used to describe people who doubt the holocaust (crazy people).
Reply With Quote