ClimateGate busts things wide open
Re: ClimateGate busts things wide open
rjj04 - the only "consensus" that AGW is true is from "true believers" like you. There is no consensus from the scientific community. The IPCC model has never been audited and nobody knows how it spits out answers. You believe because you want to. You do seem to play the man and not the ball - very poor form really.
Re: ClimateGate busts things wide open
There are many fields of science that I have little to no expertise in, so, I defer to the experts. I don't profess to have a degree in climatology thank you. Why is it, that in only certain fields of science and mathematics, people think they can see conspiracies? I mean, quantum mechanics is bizarre to no end, yet nobody tries to taint it. Branches of science that interfere (supposedly) with ones "world view" are always denigrated, as in biology, or molecular biology, at least where "evolution" comes into play. To understand the climate, you must know so much science, hydrodynamics, meteorology, atmospheric dynamics, chaos theory, etc. Yet, laymen like we here are so whimsical about suggesting that THEY KNOW there is AGW, or THEY KNOW that there is NO AGW. I DO NOT KNOW, because I have no training to allow me to determine the truth... but until some alternative theory comes out, AGW is the accepted theory by the EXPERTS. If one wants to doubt the scientific method itself, then they are asking to be left behind in this world. In the end, it is the only thing that works. [-o< 
Humor me for a bit please. I was at a start-up company, that was about to be purchased by a public company. Myself, and another engineer, knew that the state of our device (what was truly being purchased) was not what was being "sold." I asked my CEO why the purchaser was willing to buy the company, when there were so any problems with the design. No good answer came back. My friend actually took it upon himself to go around my CEO, directly to the acquiring VP, and tell him that he was about to purchase something seriously flawed. Do, you understand, my friend was voluntarily trying to give up a large sum of money, because of honor, and truth. In the end the VP went ahead with the purchase, and later regretted it, as when the chip came out, the flaws were apparent. This friend of mine, was willing to give up hundreds of thousands of dollars, if our company was not acquired. Yet, he did it anyway. I did not have the will to do what my friend did, perhaps that is a character flaw. In any case, this is why I find it very difficult to believe, that with 1000's of scientists around the world, knowing there is a problem with the science, there is no sign of them blowing a whistle. Remember, they are not going to get a boat load of money because the masses accept AGW, or do not accept it. They are just worker bees in the system. So, they have no serious reason not to come out and tell the world that the science is flawed. In fact, the opposite is probably true, as the special interests would love to get rid of the AGW theory, and I'm sure they would no doubt pay handsomely to do so. Perhaps I put too much faith in humanity?
Humor me for a bit please. I was at a start-up company, that was about to be purchased by a public company. Myself, and another engineer, knew that the state of our device (what was truly being purchased) was not what was being "sold." I asked my CEO why the purchaser was willing to buy the company, when there were so any problems with the design. No good answer came back. My friend actually took it upon himself to go around my CEO, directly to the acquiring VP, and tell him that he was about to purchase something seriously flawed. Do, you understand, my friend was voluntarily trying to give up a large sum of money, because of honor, and truth. In the end the VP went ahead with the purchase, and later regretted it, as when the chip came out, the flaws were apparent. This friend of mine, was willing to give up hundreds of thousands of dollars, if our company was not acquired. Yet, he did it anyway. I did not have the will to do what my friend did, perhaps that is a character flaw. In any case, this is why I find it very difficult to believe, that with 1000's of scientists around the world, knowing there is a problem with the science, there is no sign of them blowing a whistle. Remember, they are not going to get a boat load of money because the masses accept AGW, or do not accept it. They are just worker bees in the system. So, they have no serious reason not to come out and tell the world that the science is flawed. In fact, the opposite is probably true, as the special interests would love to get rid of the AGW theory, and I'm sure they would no doubt pay handsomely to do so. Perhaps I put too much faith in humanity?
Re: ClimateGate busts things wide open
rjj04 - quantum scientists are not trying impose a carbon tax on people, nor are they branding others who dare question their theories as sceptics.
I have a theory you are a looney - I guess it must be true until somebody proposes an alternative theory.
I did humour you for a bit and read your drivle - still think your looney.
I have a theory you are a looney - I guess it must be true until somebody proposes an alternative theory.
I did humour you for a bit and read your drivle - still think your looney.
Re: ClimateGate busts things wide open
and by the way rjj04 - scientists dont labour in search of truth - thats the philosophers role.
I doubt that any scientist has ever discovered truth. Name one who is searching for truth and present the results of his labour for us to review.
I doubt that any scientist has ever discovered truth. Name one who is searching for truth and present the results of his labour for us to review.
-
jackspratt
- udonmap.com
- Posts: 16917
- Joined: July 2, 2006, 5:29 pm
Re: ClimateGate busts things wide open
Unfortunately, even if thousands of other highly qualified people in the "looney" field were able to demonstrate that he wasn't a looney (and backed it up with lots of peer reviewed evidence, over a long period of time), you still wouldn't change your mind - would you?ronan01 wrote: I have a theory you are a looney - I guess it must be true until somebody proposes an alternative theory.
Re: ClimateGate busts things wide open
Perhaps I put too much faith in humanity?..... thanks for answering my question Ronan01 ... no hope for this species 
-
WBU ALUM
- udonmap.com
- Posts: 3240
- Joined: July 29, 2008, 11:40 pm
- Location: When I'm logged in, UdonMap
Re: ClimateGate busts things wide open
Even India, who has one of its own heading things up, is getting out.
India to 'pull out of IPCC'
India to 'pull out of IPCC'
Yes, the work is noble, but lacks quite a bit of credibility and rigor -- and let's not forget the data that was conveniently lost forever.The Indian government's move is a snub to both the IPCC and Dr Pachauri as he battles to defend his reputation following the revelation that his most recent climate change report included false claims that most of the Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035. Scientists believe it could take more than 300 years for the glaciers to disappear.
The body and its chairman have faced growing criticism ever since as questions have been raised on the credibility of their work and the rigour with which climate change claims are assessed.
Re: ClimateGate busts things wide open
Jacksprat - I suspect that a panel of scientists expert in the looney field would not put forward an alternative theory on the mental state of rjj04. But do you really need thousands of experts to reach such a conclussion? Go back and read his ramblings - sounds like a script for Yoda in Star Wars.
First it was "save the planet", then it was "cool the planet", now its "save humanity".
I would really like to see the long term data that supports AGW - but it seems to have been lost ..... forever.
With respect to "peer review" - in the case of AGW I think this has been demonstatred to be a self serving process by a group of like minded people.
As for closed minds Jack - take a look in the mirror. You simply take a contrary position to those who do not support your position, but rarely putforward anything to back it up. Contradiction is not the same as refutation - its easy to say "tis not".
First it was "save the planet", then it was "cool the planet", now its "save humanity".
I would really like to see the long term data that supports AGW - but it seems to have been lost ..... forever.
With respect to "peer review" - in the case of AGW I think this has been demonstatred to be a self serving process by a group of like minded people.
As for closed minds Jack - take a look in the mirror. You simply take a contrary position to those who do not support your position, but rarely putforward anything to back it up. Contradiction is not the same as refutation - its easy to say "tis not".
Re: ClimateGate busts things wide open
This thread is still going on??? So much rambling with absolutely no substance pertaining to the title of the thread (unless the title of the thread implies rambling containing no hard evidence)
For those that are arguing against the great amounts of scientific evidence produced in peer-reviewed literature, let us set the record straight:
*The number of peer-reviewed scientific papers giving evidence in support of there being an anthropogenic causation contributing to increased global warming being shown as fraudulent = 0 (zero).
*Even after three years, there is no dissenting opinion against the 2007 IPCC consensus statement from any major scientific organisation except from the American Association of Petroleum Geologists Not a single other major scientific organisation has come forward to criticise it.
*The statement of the glaciers disappearing by 2035 (which should have been 2350) was not from or inferred from any peer-reviewed scientific literature, nor was it contained in the consensus statement which was signed or supported by nearly every major scientific organisation in the world, except, of course, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
*Raw data no longer available years after publication does not make work fraudulent. Raw data only needs to be available to reviewers before publication and made available for reasonable amount of time after publication to qualified scientists (years after publication is not reasonable). Of course, the work could be repeated and deniers are able to do this, but this is labour intensive and might result in the same conclusion, working against their agenda
*Michael Mann of Penn State University was just cleared in an inquiry of any professional (scientific) wrongdoing and is currently only under scrutiny for his behaviour (in private emails, no less).
What the deniers of an anthropogenic cause contributing global warming must realise when their position is so denigrated by others is their position is not even on the level of being a sceptic, because even a sceptic has some evidence. Tabloid-style journalism on the side of a political-economic agenda nitpicking and producing large stories which have no real evidence behind them, but are made to raise doubt among those that are completely ignorant of science and scientific method, are no different than those with a political-religious that try to raise doubt about the fact of evolution. They both share so much in common= they are both working from a position of no evidence.
If the deniers (again, sceptics is not an appropriate term), would spend even a fraction of their time educating themselves in the science of this subject that they apparently spend searching for the tabloid quality rubbish that they produce on this forum, they might have a different perspective on the issue. Of course, those supporting political or economic agenda are not going to look at anything other than what serves their ideology.
In the end, it is not a question of 'believing'; it is a question of evidence. The most cursory objective glance at the evidence on this subject will show all evidence supporting anthropogenic causes contributing to global warming and absolutely no evidence that it is a completely natural phenomenon. Just as there are 'scientists' that argue against the fact of evolution, the deniers also have an insignificant minority of 'scientists' arguing against an anthropogenic cause contributing to global warming/climate change, some using the exact same reasoning on such different topics; however, they do share something in common: they are both working from a position of absolutely no evidence. Although the criticism of being called 'Flat-Earthers' may be unfair, it is not too far off the mark.
I will leave this topic with one last question. Why is it that there appear only to be Americans and Australians in opposition to overwhelming scientific evidence? Having a closer association with Americans, I do understand that there has been an ongoing "War Against Science" not only on this topic but also against the facts of evolution, which cover the political, economic and religious spectrums, but the Australian opposition to overwhelming scientific evidence is something I do not understand.
For those that are arguing against the great amounts of scientific evidence produced in peer-reviewed literature, let us set the record straight:
*The number of peer-reviewed scientific papers giving evidence in support of there being an anthropogenic causation contributing to increased global warming being shown as fraudulent = 0 (zero).
*Even after three years, there is no dissenting opinion against the 2007 IPCC consensus statement from any major scientific organisation except from the American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Not a single other major scientific organisation has come forward to criticise it.*The statement of the glaciers disappearing by 2035 (which should have been 2350) was not from or inferred from any peer-reviewed scientific literature, nor was it contained in the consensus statement which was signed or supported by nearly every major scientific organisation in the world, except, of course, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
*Raw data no longer available years after publication does not make work fraudulent. Raw data only needs to be available to reviewers before publication and made available for reasonable amount of time after publication to qualified scientists (years after publication is not reasonable). Of course, the work could be repeated and deniers are able to do this, but this is labour intensive and might result in the same conclusion, working against their agenda
*Michael Mann of Penn State University was just cleared in an inquiry of any professional (scientific) wrongdoing and is currently only under scrutiny for his behaviour (in private emails, no less).
What the deniers of an anthropogenic cause contributing global warming must realise when their position is so denigrated by others is their position is not even on the level of being a sceptic, because even a sceptic has some evidence. Tabloid-style journalism on the side of a political-economic agenda nitpicking and producing large stories which have no real evidence behind them, but are made to raise doubt among those that are completely ignorant of science and scientific method, are no different than those with a political-religious that try to raise doubt about the fact of evolution. They both share so much in common= they are both working from a position of no evidence.
If the deniers (again, sceptics is not an appropriate term), would spend even a fraction of their time educating themselves in the science of this subject that they apparently spend searching for the tabloid quality rubbish that they produce on this forum, they might have a different perspective on the issue. Of course, those supporting political or economic agenda are not going to look at anything other than what serves their ideology.
In the end, it is not a question of 'believing'; it is a question of evidence. The most cursory objective glance at the evidence on this subject will show all evidence supporting anthropogenic causes contributing to global warming and absolutely no evidence that it is a completely natural phenomenon. Just as there are 'scientists' that argue against the fact of evolution, the deniers also have an insignificant minority of 'scientists' arguing against an anthropogenic cause contributing to global warming/climate change, some using the exact same reasoning on such different topics; however, they do share something in common: they are both working from a position of absolutely no evidence. Although the criticism of being called 'Flat-Earthers' may be unfair, it is not too far off the mark.
I will leave this topic with one last question. Why is it that there appear only to be Americans and Australians in opposition to overwhelming scientific evidence? Having a closer association with Americans, I do understand that there has been an ongoing "War Against Science" not only on this topic but also against the facts of evolution, which cover the political, economic and religious spectrums, but the Australian opposition to overwhelming scientific evidence is something I do not understand.
Re: ClimateGate busts things wide open
India's environment minister Mr Jairam Ramesh said:
“There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism. I am for climate science. I think people misused [the] IPCC report, [the] IPCC doesn’t do the original research which is one of the weaknesses … they just take published literature and then they derive assessments, so we had goof-ups on Amazon forest, glaciers, snow peaks. "
The UN panel’s claims of glacial meltdown by 2035 “was clearly out of place and didn’t have any scientific basis,” he said, while stressing the government remained concerned about their health of the Himalayan ice flows. “Most glaciers are melting, they are retreating, some glaciers, like the Siachen glacier, are advancing. But overall one can say incontrovertibly that the debris on our glaciers is very high the snow balance is very low. We have to be very cautious because of the water security particularly in north India which depends on the health of the Himalayan glaciers,”
According to Michael C the Indian Minister (and I guess by extension India) is not far off being a flat-earther because he doubts the science behind some statements of the AGW believers - statements that cannot be backed up by science and underlying data.
Making"raw data" available to other scientists is a corner stone of science - that way they can test the "theory and the data" - replicate the results and "prove" the theory correct, or demonstrate its fallacy. Currently nobody can replicate the results that underpin the theory of AGW because the data is gone - not very scientific Michael.
Leave out the red herring about Americans and Australians - it just happens that some people on this forum and with respect to this topic happen to be from USA or Oz.
Furthermore Michael - I remember from previous posts that you stated its OK to lie (about AGW) if the cause is worthy enough - if the end justifies the means. Not a very scientific approach - better to present factual data to others and allow them to arrive at their own conclussions, rather than feed them bullsh*t and propaganda - you know the sort of stuff hitler and Stalin thought was OK.
And get off the"peer review" bandwagon - that hairy old got was laid to rest a long time ago. Surely you can do better than that!
You are letting your belief system get in the way of logic.
“There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism. I am for climate science. I think people misused [the] IPCC report, [the] IPCC doesn’t do the original research which is one of the weaknesses … they just take published literature and then they derive assessments, so we had goof-ups on Amazon forest, glaciers, snow peaks. "
The UN panel’s claims of glacial meltdown by 2035 “was clearly out of place and didn’t have any scientific basis,” he said, while stressing the government remained concerned about their health of the Himalayan ice flows. “Most glaciers are melting, they are retreating, some glaciers, like the Siachen glacier, are advancing. But overall one can say incontrovertibly that the debris on our glaciers is very high the snow balance is very low. We have to be very cautious because of the water security particularly in north India which depends on the health of the Himalayan glaciers,”
According to Michael C the Indian Minister (and I guess by extension India) is not far off being a flat-earther because he doubts the science behind some statements of the AGW believers - statements that cannot be backed up by science and underlying data.
Making"raw data" available to other scientists is a corner stone of science - that way they can test the "theory and the data" - replicate the results and "prove" the theory correct, or demonstrate its fallacy. Currently nobody can replicate the results that underpin the theory of AGW because the data is gone - not very scientific Michael.
Leave out the red herring about Americans and Australians - it just happens that some people on this forum and with respect to this topic happen to be from USA or Oz.
Furthermore Michael - I remember from previous posts that you stated its OK to lie (about AGW) if the cause is worthy enough - if the end justifies the means. Not a very scientific approach - better to present factual data to others and allow them to arrive at their own conclussions, rather than feed them bullsh*t and propaganda - you know the sort of stuff hitler and Stalin thought was OK.
And get off the"peer review" bandwagon - that hairy old got was laid to rest a long time ago. Surely you can do better than that!
You are letting your belief system get in the way of logic.
Re: ClimateGate busts things wide open
And back to the start of this topic and Peer Review:
"But what stood out most for me was extensive evidence of the hijacking of the "peer review" process to enforce global warming dogma. Peer review is the practice of subjecting scientific papers to review by other scientists with relevant expertise before they can be published in professional journals. The idea is to weed out research with obvious flaws or weak arguments, but there is a clear danger that such a process will simply reinforce groupthink. If it is corrupted, peer review can be a mechanism for an entrenched establishment to exclude legitimate challenges by simply refusing to give critics a hearing.
And that is precisely what we find.
In response to an article challenging global warming that was published in the journal Climate Research, CRU head Phil Jones complains that the journal needs to "rid themselves of this troublesome editor"-hopefully not through the same means used by Henry II's knights. Michael Mann replies:
"I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."
Note the circular logic employed here. Skepticism about global warming is wrong because it is not supported by scientific articles in "legitimate peer-reviewed journals." But if a journal actually publishes such an article, then it is by definition not "legitimate."
"But what stood out most for me was extensive evidence of the hijacking of the "peer review" process to enforce global warming dogma. Peer review is the practice of subjecting scientific papers to review by other scientists with relevant expertise before they can be published in professional journals. The idea is to weed out research with obvious flaws or weak arguments, but there is a clear danger that such a process will simply reinforce groupthink. If it is corrupted, peer review can be a mechanism for an entrenched establishment to exclude legitimate challenges by simply refusing to give critics a hearing.
And that is precisely what we find.
In response to an article challenging global warming that was published in the journal Climate Research, CRU head Phil Jones complains that the journal needs to "rid themselves of this troublesome editor"-hopefully not through the same means used by Henry II's knights. Michael Mann replies:
"I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."
Note the circular logic employed here. Skepticism about global warming is wrong because it is not supported by scientific articles in "legitimate peer-reviewed journals." But if a journal actually publishes such an article, then it is by definition not "legitimate."
-
WBU ALUM
- udonmap.com
- Posts: 3240
- Joined: July 29, 2008, 11:40 pm
- Location: When I'm logged in, UdonMap
Re: ClimateGate busts things wide open
It all certainly fits with the other socialist progressive tactics of demonizing those who are non-believers. Saul Alinsky seems to be a resource for many on the AGW bandwagon.if the cause is worthy enough - if the end justifies the means
-
jackspratt
- udonmap.com
- Posts: 16917
- Joined: July 2, 2006, 5:29 pm
Re: ClimateGate busts things wide open
ronan I would suggest it is you (amongst others) who is taking the contrary position. There is no need for me to put anything forward on this issue - it is already there, on the public record. Your statement is the equivalent of asking me to put forward arguments to support my belief that 9/11 was not a conspiracy by the US government.ronan01 wrote: As for closed minds Jack - take a look in the mirror. You simply take a contrary position to those who do not support your position, but rarely putforward anything to back it up. Contradiction is not the same as refutation - its easy to say "tis not".
There have been many posts from the sceptics on this thread pointing to apparent and real gaffes by the IPCC and its contributing bodies and individuals, but very little to back up the sceptics' position that the IPCC is wrong in its broad findings.
I note you do not refute, or even dispute, Micheal C's points:
*The number of peer-reviewed scientific papers giving evidence in support of there being an anthropogenic causation contributing to increased global warming being shown as fraudulent = 0 (zero).
*Even after three years, there is no dissenting opinion against the 2007 IPCC consensus statement from any major scientific organisation except from the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Not a single other major scientific organisation has come forward to criticise it.
Re: ClimateGate busts things wide open
Jack Jack Jack - where have you been - there are many dissenting views by repuatble scientists - you and Michael C are just blind to them because they do not conform to your fixed position on peer review superiority. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
I am not advocating a conspiricy theory - I am just againts bad science and lemming like behaviour by poor thinkers.
I am sure you really believe you are saving the planet from destruction, or mankind from itself, but I think you using AGW as a mechanism to satisfy your inherent eschastalogical tendency by foisting poor science onto others is a poor way to go about your things.
I am not advocating a conspiricy theory - I am just againts bad science and lemming like behaviour by poor thinkers.
I am sure you really believe you are saving the planet from destruction, or mankind from itself, but I think you using AGW as a mechanism to satisfy your inherent eschastalogical tendency by foisting poor science onto others is a poor way to go about your things.
-
jackspratt
- udonmap.com
- Posts: 16917
- Joined: July 2, 2006, 5:29 pm
Re: ClimateGate busts things wide open
ronan01 wrote:Jack Jack Jack - where have you been - there are many dissenting views by repuatble scientists - you and Michael C are just blind to them because they do not conform to your fixed position on peer review superiority. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
I am not advocating a conspiricy theory - I am just againts bad science and lemming like behaviour by poor thinkers.
I am sure you really believe you are saving the planet from destruction, or mankind from itself, but I think you using AGW as a mechanism to satisfy your inherent eschastalogical tendency by foisting poor science onto others is a poor way to go about your things.
Instead of trying to patronise me, why don't you address the issues I raised.
Re: ClimateGate busts things wide open
Professor Ian Plimer:
"Climate change consensus is reinforced by commercial interests, constant repetition of the mantra, research grants, subsidies, politicians looking for votes, international travel to vital Earth-changing conferences, proliferation of costly reports and investigations with predetermined conclusions, fame and fortune for scientists and journalists seeking headlines warning of an impending catastrophe, clamorous demonstrations and preaching of unchallenged gospel by those with an undeclared self interest. It demonises dissenters, has a holy book which adherents have neither read nor have the knowledge to understand; it breeds gurus whose mantras can not be challenged and they make sensationalist claims. The most dangerous aspect of this new fundamentalist religion is that it ignores history and has hints of totalitarianism. This new fundamentalist religion cannot answer simple questions":
1. What is the right temperature for the Earth?
2. What is the right carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere?
3. Why have climate models not been run backwards to replicate all we know?
4. Why have major Earth processes been omitted from models?
5. Why is scientific dissent demonised?
Ok Jack - why dont you have a go at answering the questions
"Climate change consensus is reinforced by commercial interests, constant repetition of the mantra, research grants, subsidies, politicians looking for votes, international travel to vital Earth-changing conferences, proliferation of costly reports and investigations with predetermined conclusions, fame and fortune for scientists and journalists seeking headlines warning of an impending catastrophe, clamorous demonstrations and preaching of unchallenged gospel by those with an undeclared self interest. It demonises dissenters, has a holy book which adherents have neither read nor have the knowledge to understand; it breeds gurus whose mantras can not be challenged and they make sensationalist claims. The most dangerous aspect of this new fundamentalist religion is that it ignores history and has hints of totalitarianism. This new fundamentalist religion cannot answer simple questions":
1. What is the right temperature for the Earth?
2. What is the right carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere?
3. Why have climate models not been run backwards to replicate all we know?
4. Why have major Earth processes been omitted from models?
5. Why is scientific dissent demonised?
Ok Jack - why dont you have a go at answering the questions
-
jackspratt
- udonmap.com
- Posts: 16917
- Joined: July 2, 2006, 5:29 pm
Re: ClimateGate busts things wide open
Firstly marshallb comes up with Lord Monckton as brilliant, and now ronan quotes Ian Plimer as an apparently credible source, even resorting to using Plimers tactics in asking scientific questions of those who are not qualified, and have never pretended to be qualified to answer.
In my view, and many others I have read, Plimer has absolutely no credibility. But please feel free to look at this:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2009/12/15/2772906.htm
and make up your own mind. I was particularly interested (astounded) when it comes to the bit on volcanoes and CO2 - about 9 minutes into the interview.
As far as ronan's above quote from Plimer is concerned, just out of interest, insert the word "denial" after "Climate change" in the first line, and read on.
In my view, and many others I have read, Plimer has absolutely no credibility. But please feel free to look at this:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2009/12/15/2772906.htm
and make up your own mind. I was particularly interested (astounded) when it comes to the bit on volcanoes and CO2 - about 9 minutes into the interview.
As far as ronan's above quote from Plimer is concerned, just out of interest, insert the word "denial" after "Climate change" in the first line, and read on.
Re: ClimateGate busts things wide open
Yeah Ronan01... my mental state is that I am extremely worried that if the deniers go on as they are, using anything but science to get there way... our children will be thoroughly screwed!!!!
Science and technology have progressed so fast, but the critical reasoning skills of most people have not improved one iota. AGW now is in the public realm where critical reasoning takes a back-seat to shenanigans by aggressive Neanderthals as if it were a political race. This is much more important than who wins the next election.
This "debate" over anything but the science, using irrational argumentation methods, is a joke.
Science and technology have progressed so fast, but the critical reasoning skills of most people have not improved one iota. AGW now is in the public realm where critical reasoning takes a back-seat to shenanigans by aggressive Neanderthals as if it were a political race. This is much more important than who wins the next election.
This "debate" over anything but the science, using irrational argumentation methods, is a joke.
Re: ClimateGate busts things wide open
Jackspratt - what works of Professor Plimer have you read?
-
jackspratt
- udonmap.com
- Posts: 16917
- Joined: July 2, 2006, 5:29 pm
Re: ClimateGate busts things wide open
In relation to what - as a geologist, or a climate change denier?ronan01 wrote:Jackspratt - what works of Professor Plimer have you read?