Wow. That poor dim-bulb who believes stuff such as Crichton's books...let us be glad that the fraction of the population that is like her is barely in the double digits.Best,D
It just goes to show that people will believe what they want to believe.If you could apply a truly open mind to objectively evaluating these issues, you would come to a totally different conclusion.Either that, or you already know that your case is so weak, but you keep up this facade because you misguidedly think that you're saving the world.Having listened to the on air discussion, you sound like a decent person. If you could accept that AGW is not the means to an end that many hope it will be, you could bring so much more to the debate.
Chris S wrote:> If you could apply a > truly open mind to > objectively evaluating > these issues, you would > come to a totally different > conclusion.Frankly, this is insulting.I *have* kept an open mind on the subject. I try my best still to do so. I have examined the issues in as much depth as I can, for years and years, probably, I suspect, in far more detail than you do. I have talked to dozens of climate scientists. I have read hundreds of papers. I have attended all the climate conferences I'm financially able to attend. I have read lots of books on the subject. I do my best to report the best science I can, as does every science journalist out there. That this is not what you'd like is no reason to accuse me or them of bias or worse.
It is not my intention to cause insult and I apologize if that's how I came across.I have also spent many years extensively studying this subject and imagine that on many issues, we would be in total disagreement.With regards to the Phil Jones data, and many other cases of withheld data and methodologies, you seem prepared to accept the results at face value. If however, the results had indicated that the climate was cooling significantly, I would think you might take a different view on the subject of verification and replication.The whole AGW debate has become so politicized now that it is necessary to closely examine the extreme claims made on either side to determine what the truth is.As with all science, if results can't be checked and reproduced by others, then it should not be used to alter the course of the world.That data from other agencies may also support said results may only indicate that they have the same agenda.
The whole AGW debate has become so politicized now that it is necessary to closely examine the extreme claims made on either side to determine what the truth is. That's funny: Bjorn Lomborg says yet again, not for the first time, that the science debate is over ("The fight over the science of warming is over.")Who on earth, do you think, could be politicizing it? A few dead-enders and the shills that validate them perhaps?Best,D
It must be true if Bjorn say so ;)Who's politicizing it?A few dead-enders
Chris, you're right, and I'm going to the store today to purchase additional tinfoil. From the information in the link, it appears the green environazi conspirators are using my brain waves to power their climate models and AlGore's house. Sacre bleu!Best,D
Dano,From your profile, I had a feeling that might be your response. I don't know what you would refute from that site though, it's all online and easily verifiable.I guess we're both good examples of our stereotype.Take care in the rush to the store and be sure to buy ecofoil ;)Cheers,Chris.
Post a Comment