I was a little foolish when first viewing the BBC 28Gate scandal. I foolishly thought that it would garner some attention. The BBC, as an impartial broadcaster in principle, neglecting to follow those standards would be of interest in the rest of the media. By the time I wrote my post on the subject of 28Gate, I had shifted my opinion.
In particular, I wrote about ‘right thinking’ people, the group mentality of the media that agrees that all right thinking people will agree on point x, y or z. So, there is a real scandal at the BBC, and one that is in its broader implications is more worrying than the Jimmy Saville affair. Nevertheless, the abandonment of impartiality by the BBC makes no news traction. The problem is that so many media outlets are following the same path. All ‘right thinking’ people know that humans are destroying the planet, so the BBC has done no wrong.
In the echo-chamber of right thinking, the actions of the BBC in abandoning impartiality on the issue of climate change is justified. ‘So what?’ is the silent cry. Who cares that they did so on the basis of a meeting largely comprised of activists. They were right, because all ‘right thinking’ people agree, and it does not matter what the source of the justification of the BBC might be. As long as they are ‘right thinking’, that is all well and good. For a couple of days, I scanned the news waiting to see if the story would break. I guessed it would not. It did not. Instead, a few of the usual suspects, and I mean usual suspects in a positive way here, published condemnations of the BBC. Overall, the story has fizzled out.
That is the tragedy. That ‘right thinking’ might see such a story buried. We agree, so we ignore the faults. Never mind journalistic and editorial integrity, as long as it is about right thinking, that is enough.
New Zealand Climate Change 
Where is the scandal?
The BBC isn’t giving equal time to creationists or flat earthers either, are they? Is that a scandal too?
An interesting comment – for the failure to understand science. Perhaps you might want to visit the website of Judith Curry, who is one of the foremost climate scientists, and read a little of her consideration of the uncertainty surrounding climate science. It is not a situation comparable to ‘flat earthers’ and creationists, and you insult many serious minded scientists when you make these kinds of comments.
It seems that you think that members of pressure groups should determine editorial policy of a broadcaster that claims to be impartial. How about if they allowed the labour party or conservative party an exclusive voice on labour relations. Would that be ok, or would you want the BBC to have a seminar in which different voices were heard? The same with any science with policy implications; would you want a diversity of views on genetic engineering of humans; those considering the risks, and those considering the benefits.
But no, when it comes to climate change, there is a fanatical, and I use the word carefully, desire that only one side of the science gets an airing. Why? Because any balanced picture serves to raise considerable doubts about the theory of catastrophic global warming. This is the problem; your view is that of a fanatic. You will not allow or consider any contrary factual information, theory or analysis. This is not science, but something like a religious belief system. Whilst you discuss flat earthers, you would have been defending the consensus of those ‘right thinking’ people who all agreed that the earth is flat. You take authority for science, and this is known as argumentum ad verecundiam. It is a logical fallacy. I could also add to this that your description of serious scientists as flat earthers is an ad hominem attack, another fallacy.
I find this kind of comment tiresome, and rather sad and pathetic. To deny that there are serious scientists who question catastrophic climate change is the real denialism. It is the refuge of fanatics. And ‘yes’, I am making an ad hominem attack, because you offer no argument, no consideration of the issues, but only use name calling as if that makes some kind of point. It is unintelligent, and you should feel ashamed of yourself. You have done nothing but show that you have no understanding of the issues; you have done nothing but demonstrate that you exactly have the flat earther point of view you use to attack others. Pathetic.
I’ve heard about Curry’s false claims about uncertainty:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/certainty-monster-vs-uncertainty-ewok.html
She is a denier (a creationist, if you will):
http://www.skepticalscience.com/rose-curry-double-down-denial.html
The fact is that Curry is not in line with the actual science and the scientific consensus.
So again, I fail to see the scandal. The BBS should report accurately on the science. Giving air time to deniers is like giving air time to creationists. Even a lukewarm creationist is still a creationist.
More on Curry’s dishonesty regarding uncertainty:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mythic-reasoning-uncertainty.html
Unfortunately comment #1 is about as good as it gets in NZ
We seem to be the land of the Long White Cretin
You are another one who thinks creationists should be given equal air time?
You are referring me to a blog post which represents an attack on a highly published climate scientist who simply discusses uncertainty in climate science. Do you accept that Judith Curry is a scientist with a long track record of publications in peer reviewed journals, and is serious scientist? The website that you link to brooks no uncertainty whatsoever about anything which does not support climate alarmism. Anyone, and I mean anyone, who goes off message, then gets savaged, often with ad hominem attacks. Is this the best you can do? Yet more ad hominem attacks, only this time by proxy in addition to direct attacks. Pathetic.
I will try to help you. Perhaps you might read the following:
Niiniluoto, I. (1999). Critical Scientific Realism, Oxford University Press, New York.
It is a very good book, and one that I use as a foundation to my approach to science. You may also wish to read the following:
Eemeren, F. H. and R. Grootendorst (1987). “Fallacies in pragma-dialectical perspective.” Argumentation 1(3): 283-301.
It is a good and relatively short introduction to some thoughts you may wish to apply to your commentary.
If you read the actual articles about Curry, you will realize that her blog is full of denialist lies. She may have published proper research in the past, but nowadays she’s engaging in dishonesty and propaganda.
The articles I linked to do not represent an attack, but rather expose her as the fraud she has become.
You are just referring to her as a false authority because you think she agrees with your denial.
Dr Curry is a tenured professor with many publications and has contributed to the IPCC.
Skeptical Science is an activist-led propaganda site
Unfortunately, people who refer to people who question the non-existent “consensus” as deniers, flat-earthers and creationists immediately make me hit the “off’ button
As I have demonstrated, Curry’s claims are demonstrably false. It doesn’t matter if she has done good research in the past. Her public claims are factually incorrect.
You are guilty of an Appeal to Authority. Just because Curry has published research in the past does not automatically make her right, and her latest wild claims are well beyond what she can back up with research.
Skeptical Science is the AGW equivalent of anti-creationist site TalkOrigins. Both are excellent resources for handling climate denier and creationist arguments respectively. Skeptical Science is also recognized by actual scientists as an excellent resource. You may notice that the site actually provides links and citations.
My goodness, have you actually read the reference I gave? Perhaps not. Or you might be able to understand the logical fallacies that you are grasping towards. I have simply pointed out that Judith Curry should be seen as a serious scientist, and have not appealed to authority on any issue. I have simply suggested that you read about uncertainty, and also that you acknowledge that she is not what you rudely term a ‘flat earther’. She is a serious scientist, in the same way that you attribute seriousness to those who support your point of view. However, as soon as someone diverges from your view, you use ad hominem attacks. Again, if your read the paper I referenced, you may actually grasp some of the logical fallacies that I am discussing and which you are trying to discuss.
I am guessing that you are one of the people that suggests the ‘science is settled’ on the basis of IPCC reports. This is exactly an appeal to authority. Do you appeal to their authority?
Where does your certainty come from? Have you ever engaged in reflective thought? I somehow doubt it, as you are a fanatic. If you actually took the trouble to read something of the philosophy of science, as I proposed to you, we might have a serious discussion. Here is the point I make about Judith Curry; she is (if you will excuse the term) a luke warmer. In taking that position, she diverges from my viewpoint. However, I take her views seriously. She is a scientist who actually understands the questions, and actually builds her position based upon a mature understanding of the philosophy of science. It is the very opposite of the fanaticism that characterises debate around climate change, which is why I pointed you in her direction. When you can actually bother yourself to learn something about the philosophy of science, you might find that your views and might be moved; then again, if I am right in characterising you as a fanatic, then perhaps not. And that is the crux of the matter. You will not read the references, will not take the trouble to try to understand what science should be, and will just pour forth poor arguments that you pick up on blogs. The sad part is that, even though I do not agree with all Judith Curry says, I can respect her views. It is sad because you cannot see or understand that her position is nuanced, well grounded in the philosophy of science, and that even such complete reasonableness generates the kind of bitter attack that you replicate here.
You just don’t get it do you? I simply pointed out that she is, by any reasonable standard, a scientist with a track record in her field. Therefore, when expressing uncertainty, it seems reasonable to take her point of view seriously. But no, she is now a ‘denier’, to use your idiotic terminology. And it is idiotic. As I have stated before, when you refer to people as flat earthers, you are the one who would have been on the side of the flat earthers. The only difference is that, in the time of the flat earth debate, the term ‘heretic’ was used. Pathetic.
Quote: “I have simply pointed out that Judith Curry should be seen as a serious scientist”
And I have pointed out that her political demagoguery is irrelevant. Just because she has done proper research doesn’t make her blatant lies in her blog correct. Hence, you are appealing to a false authority because she can not back up her lies with facts.
She is not merely “expressing uncertainty” but in fact spreading lies.
She is a concern troll.
Look a little closer to home if you want the truth in fact of the great global warming scam. Check out Professor Bob Carter.
Bob Carter is another denier. It’s like using Kent Hovind as a source of info on the Theory of Evolution.
Possibly the best troll put-down I have ever read. Congratulations!
This is quite hilarious, considering that you have obviously not even looked at the report in question (nor has anyone else here).
The hypocrisy is rather obvious.
“If you read the actual articles about Curry”
By which you mean “if you read the activist driven smear campaigns run by greens”.
On the other hand you could actually engage in trying to understand the scientific and socio-political issues.
I realise that this might be a bit hard though.
No, I mean the factual article, backed up by actual facts and references.
You are just denying the facts because they don’t match your predetermined position.
Scientific and socio-political issues? This is really very simple: Curry is a liar, and the BBC thing is not a scandal at all, but actually very good news for science-minded people.
This issue has nothing to with any report. It is to do with trust and transparency with the BBC
You quoted “Fallacies in pragma-dialectical perspective.”
And once again: Where’s the scandal?
The BBC decides to reflect the scientific consensus rather than those denying it. That’s the right thing to do.
Your latest deluge of responses; I need to give you a vote of thanks. I have been working on my own research today, and was feeling a little ‘frazzled’. Thank you as you managed to put a smile on my face. I will not respond to your comment, as anyone but a fanatic will likewise look on with amused bewilderment. You have done us all a service, by demonstrating that you can see nothing, understand nothing, and that your mind is completely closed. Thank you.
In other words, you can’t actually explain what’s so scandalous about reflecting the scientific consensus rather than denying it?
Pure comedy; thank you.
Where is the scandal, he/she asks?
The BBC is a publicly funded broadcaster. They have been shown to be politically biased on many fronts, including on Israel/Palestine, on multi-culturalism, on climate change
This issue is just the tip of the iceberg
Ok, so the scandal is that the BBC reflects the scientific consensus rather than giving equal air time to those who deny science?
So it’s a scandal that creationists are not given more air time on the BBC?
Perhaps you could tell us what The Consensus actually is, and who has determined what it is.
Perhaps you’d like to tell us what makes someone a flat earther Is it someone who thinks climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is 0.5 degc, or 0.8189 deg c, or 1.213 deg c.
Any thoughts?
Andy wants to know what the consensus is, and who has determined that.
Andy might want to learn the basics:
How scientific consensus is reached: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus
What the consensus on man-made global warming is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
What makes someone a flat earther is that he thinks the world is flat. He is a science denier, just like the climate science denier.
And apparently the scandal is that BBC reflects the scientific consensus rather than giving equal air time to those who deny science.
Apparently, it is a scandal that creationists are not given more air time on the BBC.
Go figure.
Tony Newbery has uncovered a bit more on this issue. Some dubious rewriting of history going on with the documents
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=631
What has he uncovered? I can’t seem to access the page at the moment.
I am not sure Wikipedia is an authoritative source on climate change,
Of The 28 people at this meeting, 3 were active climate scientists, all with an alarmist bent. There were representatives from Greenpeace and other activist organizations.
Greenpeace is a political lobbyist. They have no place influencing a state broadcaster on scientific matters behind closed doors.
Wikipedia is a nice place for lay people like you and I to get a quick summary of something. The site also adds citations so that one can check sources if needed.
The fact is that the BBC decided to reflect the scientific consensus. This, apparently, is really terrible to climate deniers.
Bishop Hill reports that The Scotsman has published a piece on 28-gate, the first to be done in the MSM, with an interesting analogy with the Scottish separation issue (in fact, given the institutional bias in favour of EU membership, this is closer to the truth)
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/11/26/28gate-in-the-scotsman.html
“The Scotsman is a Scottish newspaper, published in Edinburgh. As of August 2012 it had an audited circulation of only 35,949, down from about 100,000 in the 1980s.”
MSM indeed.
You cannot even accept that a paper is a part of the MSM if it allows any views contrary to your own. Your thinking is genuinely extraordinary, and I do not mean this with a positive sense.
I think you’ll find that many newspapers are down in readership compared to the 1980s, for obvious reasons.
and the Guardian is losing so much money and readership that they are thinking of moving to an online-only model
I’m just pointing out the hilarity of people like you cheering over irrelevant stuff like this.
“Wow! We are winning! Some tiny Scottish newspaper covered the story! Science will be defeated very soon!”
It’s interesting to read the comments, and see how many people already knew about 28-gate. They mildly admonish the Scotsman for being so late to the party.
This is a feature of the new way things work in the age of the internet. The MSM is becoming increasingly irrelevant.
Yes, conspiracy theorists are really eager to expand their echo chambers.
I have been following the ’28-Gate’ BBC scandal. Yes, Snerker, it IS a scandal of real magnitude, in that the BBC is financed very largely through a tax on anyone who watches television through any communications device whatsoever that they own, namely the ‘Licence Fee’, which is utterly compulsory for UK citizens who reside within the territorial boundaries of the UK.
If you are happy to accept state servants lying, and BBC employees are, by definition, state servants, in the pursuit of any agenda that the state entity that employs them follows that does not fall within the BBC Charter’s own clearly-stated guidelines,, you operate from an odd set of definitions.
The BBC has a Charter; it is obliged , by law, to fulfil the terms encapsulated within that charter.
The ’28-Gate’ affair has demonstrated very clearly that the BBC and it’s spokespersons are quite prepared to lie to their shareholders (the UK taxpayers) to hide the fact that they are NOT acting within the boundaries imposed by the BBC Charter. The same state servants are also quite prepared to spend enormous sums (diverted from the Licence Fee) on employing lawyers to hide their nefarious actions from the public.
Science, and you should know this, has never ever been determined by consensus, and the consensus you quote is, I suspect, the same ‘consensus’ that was falsely declared as the result of a very dubious undergraduate questionnaire sent to and returned by a very small number of scientists.
Finally, most school and university teachers warn their students not to rely on the accuracy of Wikipedia. By it’s very structure, Wikipedia has proved to be too easily interfered with by activists eager to promote their own version of ‘facts’.
Ok, Alexander, so you think it is a scandal that the BBC’s coverage reflects the actual science.
I guess the same goes for Evolution as well?
snerkersnerk | November 27, 2012 at 5:34 am | Reply
Wikipedia is a nice place for lay people like you and I to get a quick summary of something. The site also adds citations so that one can check sources if needed.
Wikipedia is a great resource for non-contentious issues, like for example understanding Newton’s Laws of Motion. However, it performs pretty poorly when it comes to politicised issues like climate change
William Connelley, a UK Green party member and climate activist, has touched over 5000 pages on Wikipedia alone. In fact, there is a constant battle on what is deemed “true” there. Therefore, I tend to treat anything potentially contentious with the same scepticism as I would from a newspaper or blog
The fact is that the BBC decided to reflect the scientific consensus. This, apparently, is really terrible to climate deniers.
The BBC decided to take the advice of Greenpeace and others with vested interests (financial, political and otherwise) in climate alarmism.
it certainly doesn’t represent any “consensus”, even if such a thing exists.
To suggest that there is no debate about climate science or policy is ridiculous. For a start, we have no idea what the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 is. It could be anything between zero and 10 degrees C
Furthermore, the UK has implemented the most expensive act in history – the climate change act, yet virtually no MPs who voted it in have any idea how to achieve the targets for decarbonisation. We desperately need debate on these issues, but the BBC is stifling them
Oh no! Someone edited a lot of articles! Another scandal! Because the actual validity doesn’t matter, just the number of articles!
Again, if anything should seem wrong, Wikipedia requires you to use citations.
The BBC decided to reflect the scientific consensus. This does not fly well with creationists, climate deniers and other people who think they know better than the actual scientists.
There is a clear consensus. The claim that there isn’t is a typical creationist claim as well.
Connelly was banned by Wikipedia from editing global warming pages due to his behaviour.
I think that says it all, really.
If I am not mistaken, he was topic banned because he was being harsh to climate deniers who kept spamming AGW articles with nonsense. It is not his fault that voluntary moderators who are clueless on a topic were set to decide its fate.
By the way, I notice that Bob D dishonestly tries to give the impression that Connolley was banned for doing something wrong while editing. That his facts were wrong. In reality, it was about fighting with climate deniers, not about the accuracy of his contributions.
Deniers are being dishonest again.
“8.2) William M. Connolley has been uncivil and antagonistic to editors within the topic area, and toward administrators enforcing the community probation.
8.3) …William M. Connolley has shown an unreasonable degree of Ownership over climate-related articles and unwillingness to work in a consensus environment.
8.4) William M. Connolley has repeatedly violated the biography of living persons policy. Violations have included inserting personal information irrelevant to the subject’s notability, use of blogs as sources, inserting original research and opinion into articles, and removing reliably sourced positive comments about subjects. He has edited biographical articles of persons with whom he has off-wiki professional or personal disagreements.
8.5) William M. Connolley has focused a substantial portion of his editing in the Climate change topic area on biographical articles about living persons who hold views opposed to his own with respect to the reality and significance of anthropogenic global warming, in a fashion suggesting that he does not always approach such articles with an appropriately neutral and disinterested point of view.”
Clearly he deserved the ban. I’m a little surprised you are a supporter of such behaviour.
On the subject of declines in newspaper circulations, the OECD published a report a while back showing that the US and the UK were worst hit
Regarding Judith Curry, I note that (Wikipedia):
Also:
All of which suggests she is a genuine scientist, and probably far more qualified in this field than snerkersnerk will ever be.
It is also worth noting that her qualifications and expertise were never in doubt until the moment she asked some inconvenient questions concerning global warming. Then suddenly she was attacked and vilified relentlessly.
I think that, regardless of background, however well intentioned the scientist, does not matter; the point in your last paragraph is the crux of the matter. The problem is that there are some in the scientific community that are complicit with the views of Snerkersnerk. The problem is that, regardless of how strong a background a person might have in the science, any doubt sees the attack dogs let loose, and the result is plain to see. It is a wonder any scientists put their heads abover parapet.
Meanwhile, at the other end of the spectrum, we have people like Snerkersnerk who give an ersatz view of science, cloaked in what has been made into ‘legitimised’ name calling. The really sad part is that Snerkersnerk talks about consensus, whilst calling others flat-earthers. It is pure comedy, and this is why I asked about self-reflection in my first reply; how can someone not see the irony of calling someone a flat-earther whilst appealing to a consensus position?
When reading snerkersnerk, it brings to mind the movie scenes in which a howling mob mistakenly demands the lyching of somebody who has done no wrong. They have some incoherent views, they are angry, and they lash out at the victim of their rage. The mob does not pause for thought, but is driven on by rabble rousing demagogues. In the films, of course, there is usually a hero who can finally persuade the mob to reason. Sadly, this is only found in the movies. Reason has no traction for the fanatical supporters for the idea of catastrophic climate change.
“Skeptic”‘s comment is hilariously hypocritical as well:
Right, such as the massive attacks on Mann, Jones, etc.
And once again, the background doesn’t matter if a person is caught lying like Curry has. Her lies do not become any truer just because she has published research.
Once again, Jones. Mann. Others. They are constantly being viciously attacked by deniers. But apparently that’s fine.
Yes, because a bunch of religious guys were wrong about the earth being flat at some point, there is no scientific consensus! Man, do you deniers get your claims straight from creationists or what? Because creationists are making the exact same claim about the Theory of Evolution.
Yes, a one person mob. And the rage! With furious outbursts like “Where is the scandal?”
Yes, how terrible. That sure matches the death threats against researchers like Jones and Mann. Yes indeed.
And the hilarity of the hypocrisy is just getting better. Who’s doing the lashing here? Who’s lashing out at the BBC? At Jones? At Mann? At other climate scientists whose research strengthens the consensus?
Whose lynching has been demanded, by the way?
Of course she’s a scientist.
But you should know better than most that “scientist” doesn’t equal “right”. After all, you claim that thousands of climate scientists around the world, and even respected journals like “Nature” and “Science” are part of a massive conspiracy.
Mann, Jones, and countless other scientists who are considered to be experts in their field and have published numerous papers on the subject are constantly attacked by deniers.
But suddenly you have this scientist who has published valid science, and all her claims are blindly and uncritically swallowed by the deniers.
Curry’s credentials are irrelevant to the fact that she’s lying in public. Her lies don’t become less so just because she has published valid scientific research.
And once again, the denialist hypocrisy has been uncovered: If the scientist agrees with the science denial, automatically accept anything that scientist says, and elevate this person to godhood. If the scientist supports the consensus, viciously attack this person in every conceivable way possible.
Is it really worth bothering with a troll who calls itself “snerkersnerk”. Do you actually have an identity and if so, any position in which to comment on climate science?
In short, a complete waste of time.
Do YOU have an identity? What is your point?
Are you in a position which makes you competent to comment on climate science?
No, no one here is in such a position. No one here is an actively publishing climate researcher.
But the difference between you and I is that you claim that the entire scientific establishment is wrong (including respected journals like “Nature” and “Science”, while I’m accepting the consensus. As such, it is you who must present the evidence to show that the science is wrong.
Crazy conspiracy theories and creationist-like arguments will not do.
It seems that you equate volume of material with winning an argument.
Again, you attack Judith Curry. And again you use words like ‘denier’, Again, you fail to even recognise that Judith Curry accepts the principles that human activity is impacting upon the climate. Her crime, which has seen the launch of the attack dogs is just to discuss uncertainty. It is the sign of a mature scientist. Even the IPCC admits to uncertainties in the details of their reports.
As for my discussion of the climategate emails, the emails do the talking for themselves. In the first climategate release, there were cries of ‘out of context’. I give the full context, and I did not even need to comment, but did so out of a mixture of outrage and shock. I was genuinely shocked. If you look at the post immediately before the two climategate post, I was posting as I was reading through the emails for the first time, and you can probably see my growing shock and outrage. For me, it was a shock to read what I was reading. I resist the idea of conspiracy.
The content of the emails is not science but anti-science.
Here is the difference; I am not putting wicked intentions based upon baseless inferences. It is there in the emails. The individuals involved tell the story themselves.
However, regardless of your point of view on climate change, the emails, in context, show individuals conspiring to wreck a person’s career. I did not start reading the climategate emails looking for conspiracy, but that is what I found. I started by looking for any comments on the New Zealand temperature record, which led me to emails from Salinger, which led me to the finding of the conspiracy.
No doubt, in talking of conspiracy theorists, you are referring to the absurd study of Lewendowsky. I do not believe that there were no moon landings, and do not believe the CIA shot Kennedy (or whichever variant given), and I accept the protocols of the elders of zion was faked (if I recall the name correctly), and so forth. I doubt the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming because there is a lack of evidence to support the theory. I have met many skeptics, and none to date have ever believed in such conspiracy theories. Like myself, they have the same concerns over the evidence.
Your comments are now attacking me, in addition to Judith Curry. You accuse me of being a hypocrite, but I present actual evidence in the words of the people involved in the wrong, rather than baseless slurs.
This is the difference between you and me. You will find in my posts many references to the many scientists who believe in catastrophic AGW, and who I say I am sure pursue their work honestly. Again, this is the difference between you and I. I can disagree but still respect those with whom I disagree and do not baselessly slander those who hold a different view to me. I accept that many of the scientists who believe in catastrophic AGW are genuine. Interestingly, you argue that credentials might be questioned. However, I accept the credential of many I disagree with on climate change, including Judith Curry.
This is the difference between you, a fanatic, and I. I can accept that many people who accept catastrophic AGW are genuine.
This is the difference between scientists and fanatics, and I am on the side of science. Sadly, as I have emphasised before, fanatics have no desire to reflect on their views. As such, I am not sure at this stage why I am engaging with a fanatic. There really is no point, as nothing will shift your opinion. We could enter a new ice age, and you would still claim humans are responsible.
P.S. You are not a lynch mob on your own; you cite an article that represents the views of a virtual lynch mob. It is typical of your fatuous approach. Just plain comedic.
.
Just for everyone else (not the troll), it’s worth noting that John Cook (running Skeptical Science) is not as well qualified as Judith Curry, and neither is (I presume) dana1981 or whatever he/she is.
The main problem with the pages snerk referred us to is that they are hopelessly, even comically, incorrect.
I won’t go into all the mistakes, but I will point out one obvious error. Most of one of the pages attacking Curry is based on the assumption (stated as fact) that the earth is experiencing a measured radiative energy imbalance. Almost all the following arguments on the page depend upon this assertion. For example, they state:
However, the reality is that we (as humans) have never measured any such imbalance. Indeed, James Hansen himself ridiculed the very notion that we can ever do so, since it would involve surrounding the earth with a fine array of satellites (Hansen, 1997)
In fact, the energy imbalance is purely speculation, and is looking increasingly unlikely as every year passes without warming, since under imbalance conditions atmospheric temperatures must necessarily rise (Hansen, 2005).
Therefore Judith Curry’s assertions and doubts are proven correct, and John Cook, dana1981 etc are shown to be without support.
They also state:
However, Nuccitelli et al. (2012) which was not a paper, but rather a comment on another paper, was shown by Douglass & Knox to be hopelessly incorrect. When their mistakes were corrected, Nuccitelli et al. (2012) actually ended up supporting Douglass & Knox (2012).
“John Cook (running Skeptical Science) is not as well qualified as Judith Curry”
The dishonesty is astounding. Remember, it is not Cook who is denying the science or actively spreading lies. It is Curry who has been caught lying.
You claim that thousands of climate scientists around the world, and even respected journals like “Nature” and “Science” are part of a massive conspiracy.
Mann, Jones, and countless other scientists who are considered to be experts in their field and have published numerous papers on the subject are constantly attacked by deniers.
But suddenly you have this scientist who has published valid science, and all her claims are blindly and uncritically swallowed by the deniers.
Curry’s credentials are irrelevant to the fact that she’s lying in public. Her lies don’t become less so just because she has published valid scientific research.
It’s the alarmists who are constantly appealing to authority in their arguments, and who also state that they will only acknowledge peer-reveiwed literature.
Yet they attack highly-qualified scientists like Lindzen, Curry, Singer, Christy, Spencer, de Freitas, Carter, etc. whenever they raise inconvenient truths, libelling them (as you’ve just done with Dr Curry – I hope for your sake she never reads it) in the most disgusting manner. They also love to point folk to blog posts (Skeptical Science, RealClimate) to back up their arguments. So much for “only peer-reviewed science”.
Most people see through this, and realise the alarmists are incapable of dealing with dissent of any sort.
Many people have stated repeatedly that the one thing that aroused their suspicions originally about the validity of AGW was the reactions of the alarmists whenever reasonable doubts were raised – they tried to shout them down and ridicule them instead of engaging in adult discussions.
I would also like to point out that I have continually tried to provide references in my comments here to peer-reviewed papers, and I have repeatedly referenced James Hansen himself, to show you that Dr Curry’s assertions are easily supportable based on the scientific literature.
So it’s quite clear that I am not in any way rejecting scientists simply because they are not on my “side”. Rather I am interested in the truth of it. Like Dr Curry, I have concluded that there is considerable uncertainty in the basic theory of AGW. Climate sensitivities are essentially unknown, and the energy imbalance is unknown. With the uncertainties in these two factors, how can anyone claim the science is settled?
Do yourself a favour, and read Hansen (2005). Have a careful look at the uncertainty intervals on the original forcings. You should notice that when all uncertainty bands are catered for, an energy imbalance of zero is acceptable (ie: included in the uncertainty interval).
This is in fact an amazing outcome, and yet is acknowledged nowhere in the paper. That fact alone means that we cannot at the moment say with any scientific certainty that AGW is even occurring, or will occur.
Once again, Judith Curry is correct, based on the scientific literature. Your labelling her as a “liar” is quite despicable, and opens you to legal action, so I’d tone it down if I were you.
See here for further details of the failure of Nuccitelli et al. (2012):
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037596011201119X
Just a quick note of thanks to those who have responded to Snerkersnerk. Many good points have been made. Sadly, we will not change Snerkersnerk’s views, but others who visit the post will be better informed by your comments and replies.
A quick note to you “Skeptic” (LOL), you have failed to address my points. Instead, you resort to dodging and weaving, Appeal to Authority, Gish Gallops, etc.
Creationism in a nutshell.
Since my earlier replies, there are no ‘points’ worth addressing….and even the earlier ‘points’ were not really worth addressing.
On the contrary, you have failed to respond properly to my comments. Instead, you have resorted to red herrings, silly comparisons, creationist outbursts, etc.
Maybe I have been a little hard on you. Maybe not. However, I will make a deal with you. Read the reference on Critical Scientific Realism that I gave you. It should be available in any decent sized library. If not available in your local library, you can ask they get a copy for you. When you have read the book, come back to this site and fire away. However, I will want you to demonstrate that you have read it; the original, not summaries. I will know the difference…. You can critique the philosophy if you wish. Or alternatively, you can try to justify your position in the context of the philosophy of critical scientific realism. If you do either and demonstrate some kind of genuine understanding, I will give you some respect. In the meantime, your repetition of the same name-calling ‘points’ will garner no response. Your petulant and childish ‘points’ deserve no reply. In summary, I hope that, if you engage with the philosophy of science, you may actually realise how silly your ‘points’ actually are, and engaging with serious philosophy of science will likely be the only way to shift your approach.
How is this book of yours relevant, exactly? I am not going to read an entire book based on the vague promise by a science denier that it will be absolutely key to something you have yet to explain.
Remember, I’m not the one denying the science here. You are. You are basically claiming that, for example, respected journals like “Nature” and “Science” are part of a massive conspiracy.
Oh dear, I was not too hard on you. I rather foolishly thought that, you might actually be interested in looking at the philosophy of science. But no, you just want to continue with your silly throwing around of words like denier – with absolutely no understanding of what the word ‘science’ even means. Comedic.
In other words, another red herring? You can’t even explain how the book is relevant here.
It is you who need to be educated about science. You are the one denying the science and insisting that the whole world is conspiring against you, including respected scientific journals like “Nature” and “Science.”
I read Karl Poppers Conjectures and Refuations when I was a school, a long time ago one.
I think this is another one of those classic science texts.
Unfortunately, he was a friend of Hayek and therefore is probably smeared by the curtural marxists.
Popper at school – now that is unusual. You must have been to a very good school.
Just to expand on how ludicrous John Cook’s assertion is that we can measure the planetary energy imbalance, here is James Hansen himself on the topic (emphasis added):
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/13421/2011/acp-11-13421-2011.pdf (pg 13443)
Cook is seriously in error on this topic, and Judith Curry is correct.
Hansen seems to be talking about measurements in a single direction. Is that what dana1981 (not Cook) is talking about?
Here’s what Cook wrote about Earth’s energy imbalance:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Measuring-Earths-energy-imbalance.html
And here’s a little something from Hansen himself talking about measuring the energy imbalance:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_16/
So, does that mean I’ve caught yet another denialist doing cherry-picking?
I think you have completely misunderstood. There’s a huge difference between measuring and estimating. Hansen quite clearly shows that we are unable to measure any imbalance to the required accuracy using satellites.
Hansen (2005) estimated an imbalance at 0,.85W/m2, based on models, then suddenly within a few years he had to re-estimate, and the amount came down closer to 0.5W/m2, while Knox and Douglass (2010) estimated a number close to zero, based on ARGO data.
Do you get what I’m saying now? Cook starts off declaring a measured imbalance has been found, and develops a whole theory from there. But an imbalance hasn’t been measured, and in fact we cannot measure it accurately. Therefore everything that follows is uncertain, which is exactly what Curry said in the first place, and so by the way did Kevin Trenberth in his ‘travesty’ comment.
“Hansen seems to be talking about measurements in a single direction.”
You obviously can’t measure an imbalance, which is axiomatically about net flow, in only one direction.
So, Bob, is Cook actually talking about measuring in only one single direction (which is what Hansen is talking about)? And where might he be doing that?
To show that your Hansen quote is relevant, you must show that Cook did what Hansen was talking about.
Umm, you still don’t get it.
Ah well, I tried.
So are you saying that you can’t explain away your attempt at pulling the wool over people’s eyes by misrepresenting Hansen and Cook?
You’re right, Skeptic, he’s hilarious.
Ah yes, the creationists dodge-and-weave. Don’t answer questions. Don’t be more specific. Pretend that everything is all right. Attempt to ridicule people who expose you.
Not even comedic now. Just dull.
…and yet you keep responding.
A quick note to you “Skeptic” (LOL), you have failed to address my points. Instead, you resort to dodging and weaving, Appeal to Authority, Gish Gallops, etc.
Creationism in a nutshell.
I agree with Skeptic. You haven’t actually made any points worth addressing.
You call Judith Curry a “liar” without specifying what she is lying about, you hide behind a pseudonym and shout at us like a petulant teenager.
Do you get paid by the hour for this?
If Snerkersnerk is being paid to comment, I only hope that the remuneration is based on quantity rather than quality…..or perhaps paid on comedic value?
@Andy, I did explain what she was lying about. I linked to several articles.
And both @Andy and @Denialist: Denialists sure love conspiracy theories! And of course, the likes of “Nature” and “Science” are part of this massive conspiracy too, aren’t they?
Personally I regard the rhetorical nature of our friend Snerker as about as appealing as a Harvey Norman TV commercial turned up full volume while I am holding my head with a massive hangover,
That’s rich, coming from someone who can’t even answer a simple question. Typical science denialist behavior: Run away, and change the topic. Constantly.
That’s rich, coming from someone who can’t even answer a simple question. Typical science denialist behavior: Run away, and change the topic. Constantly.
Which question did I fail to answer?
Strange that snerker claims that
” And of course, the likes of “Nature” and “Science” are part of this massive conspiracy too, aren’t they?”
Yet no one other than (s)he claimed that (Ctrl-F through the comments)
This post is not about Nature or Science or any perceived bias therein. It is about the BBC.
No, this is definitely about Nature and Science since there are deniers here who question the scientific consensus on climate change. That is, they even question that there is a consensus (or deny the consensus).
Indeed, you have desperately tried to discredit Wikipedia by giving a dishonest impression that someone was cheating there just because he was an active editor with more than 5000 edits.
Claiming that the consensus is wrong and that there’s a conspiracy means that you must also claim that Nature and Science are in on it.
Ok, I have had more interesting conversations with the Jehovah Witnesses who are at least polite when they come knocking on my door. I try to return the favour. Unfortunately, in your case this is coming to a dead end.
Have a nice day Mr Snerker.
Polite, eh? Yes, because it’s very polite of you deniers to constantly attack climate scientists and accuse them (and the likes of Nature and Science) to be part of a massive conspiracy to turn the world into a Communist dictatorship or whatever it is your delusions are all about nowadays.
Strange, I have never attacked scientists, I never made any comments about Nature or Science, I never mentioned a conspiracy, or communism etc.
This post is about the BBC, why it chose to hide the name of 28 experts, so called, from the public. Why it chose to spend a six figure sum hiding it from a blogger, and why it had the info in the public domain anyway.
We could also ask us related questions about why the BBC harbored serial child molestors for decades, while it allowed a false accusation against Lord McAlpine to go unchecked, and why this led to the Director General of the BBC to resign after 53 days in the job, taking a 1 .3 million pound payout for those 53 days.
Of course, if we ask these questions, we must be deranged right wing creationist nut jobs
Makes sense doesn’t it?
They didn’t call them “28 experts.” Quote-mining is another creationist tactic.
And like creationists, you are constantly changing the subject.
I specifically mention “Nature” and “Science” because for your conspiracy to be real, they have to be in on it. After all, they accept the scientific consensus. It’s to illustrate how insane the claim that there’s some big conspiracy to hide the truth about AGW from the world is.
This post is about the BBC, and how it has decided to not let fringe nutjobs get equal air time. Apparently you think creationists and other fringe nutjobs should get equal air time as the facts of the relevant scientific fields. After all, you think it’s a scandal that the BBC decided to reflect the scientific consensus on AGW rather than letting fringe nutjob deniers get equal air time.
This post is about the BBC, and how it has decided to not let fringe nutjobs get equal air time
Indeed, like those “fringe nutjobs” that don’t think membership of the EU is in the UK’s best interests, or who think that unequal time is given to the Palestinian cause, or who question whether the country should be plastered in windfarms.
Other regimes had more effective means of dealing with those “fringe nutjobs”.
Asking for authority ? Let’s check what the Interacademy Report, the IPCC’s own investigation into itself after climategate, had to say about uncertainty, etc.
This is about the highest authority one may ask for. Needless to say, that NONE of the issues have been addressed or improved for the current IPCC report.
“There were several findings in the IAC report indicating a failure on the part of the IPCC to ensure that the full range of scientific views are given consideration.
• The IAC warned against “confirmation bias” and recommended that “Lead Authors should explicitly document that a range of scientific viewpoints has been considered” and that Review Editors and Coordinating Lead Authors should check that “due consideration was given to properly documented alternative views” (p. 20). The implication is that, at present, these things do not happen: Lead Authors in some cases fail to give consideration to a range of scientific views, and nobody verifies whether they have done so.
• The IAC pointed out that there is no formal process or criteria for selecting Lead Authors, and cautioned that “The absence of a transparent author selection process or well-defined criteria for author selection can raise questions of bias and undermine the confidence of scientists and others in the credibility of the assessment.” (p. 18). They alluded to the problem again later when they observed “Having author teams with diverse viewpoints is the first step toward ensuring that a full range of thoughtful views are considered.” (p. 20)
• They also called upon the IPCC to develop policies governing conflict of interest, including intellectual conflicts of interest in which Lead Authors are in a position of reviewing their own work, or have revealed through speeches, public statements or writings that they hold “fixed positions” (pp. 46-47).
• The IAC commented that some of their respondent were concerned that “the Summary for Policy Makers places more emphasis on what is known, sensational, or popular among Lead Authors than one would find in the body of the report.” (p. 25). They went on to observe that the Working Group II Summary for Policymakers “is more focused on the negative impacts of climate change than the underlying report” (p. 26).
Treatment of uncertainty
The IAC was deeply critical of the way the IPCC, particularly Working Group II, handled and reported on uncertainty, especially in regards to statements about the impacts of climate change.The Working Group II Summary for Policy Makers in the Fourth Assessment Report contains many vague statements of “high confidence” that are not supported sufficiently in the literature, not put into perspective, or are difficult to refute. (p. 37)
They found that the guidance for explaining uncertainty is not itself adequate, and is often not followed anyway (p. 4). They recommended use of a Level-of-Understanding scale for communicating uncertainty, rather than a probability scale, since it is inappropriate to assign probabilities and confidence levels to poorly-understood issues.
Many of the 71 conclusions in the “Current Knowledge about Future Impacts” section of the Working Group II Summary for Policy Makers are imprecise statements made without reference to the time period under consideration or to a climate scenario under which the conclusions would be true….In the Committee’s view, assigning probabilities to imprecise statements is not an appropriate way to characterize uncertainty. If the confidence scale is used in this way, conclusions will likely be stated so vaguely as to make them impossible to refute, and therefore statements of “very high confidence” will have little substantive value. (pp. 33-34).
More generally, the IAC noted that in some cases “[IPCC] authors reported high confidence in statements for which there is little evidence, such as the widely-quoted statement that agricultural yields in Africa might decline by up to 50 percent by 2020. Moreover, the guidance was often applied to statements that are so vague they cannot be falsified. In these cases the impression was often left, quite incorrectly, that a substantive finding was being presented.” (p. 36)
Basis of conclusions
The IAC concluded that “many of the conclusions in the “Current Knowledge about Future Impacts” section of the Working Group II Summary for Policy Makers are based on unpublished or non-peerreviewed literature” (p. 33). They also found that many conclusions stated with “High Confidence” by Working Group II had little or no scientific basis:
[By] making vague statements that were difficult to refute, authors were able to attach “high confidence” to the statements. The Working Group II Summary for Policy Makers contains many such statements that are not supported sufficiently in the literature. (p. 4).
Click to access rmck_climategate.pdf
NONE of the issues have been addressed for the current IPCC report. Worse, IPCC co-chair Stocker disturbingly worked in the opposite direction:
That’s pretty silly, Manfred, quoting an anti-scientific source which is doing nothing but cherry-picking and quote-mining, and leaving out things like “the Committee found that the IPCC assessment process has been successful overall”.
Stop quoting Monckton’s nonsensical anti-science drivel organization and its publications, please.
The quotes speak for themselves, it doesn’t matter if you ignore them. Besides, there is no link to Lord Monckton (who is a great person by the way) as you invented.
Further are the authors not “anti-science” as you rant, instead they have published major peer reviewed papers in good journals in climate science (among others destruction of the hockey stick, 50% of land warming attruibutable to land use change and UHI, climate models fail compared with measured data) and have been expert reviewers for the IPCC.
Moreover, there findings have not only been the MAIN topic between leading climate scientists in the leaked climategate emails but also been acknowledged.
The quotes do not speak for themselves when they are being misrepresented. Quote-mining is a well known creationist tactic. Context can radically change the meaning of a quote. For example, Darwin’s comment that it is unbelievable how they eye can arise naturally and then he explains how. Creationists only leave in the first part.
Monckton is a liar and a hack. He has no relevant background to speak on the subject. He is also the guy who wants to create internment camps for AIDS sufferers, locking them up and separating them from the rest of the population. He also wants to screen the entire population for AIDS every 6-12 months or so. He also claims to have invented a miracle cure which cures all sorts of things. And he lies about being a member of the House of Lords. And so on…
Yes, the authors of the SPPI (where Monckton is the main contributor, IIRC) are anti-science. They are publishing their nonsense in garbage “journals” like E&E.
What findings have been the main topic in the Fakegate (“Climategate”) emails? When/where was that acknowledged?
Yet more ad hominems, and still no response to my point made in my more recent comment on my more recent post. Why?
What point?
And ad hominem? When liar Monckton is made out to be an authority on the subject, and even “is a great person,” one must point out the fact that he is incompetent, a liar, and of course his attitudes towards other human beings.
Someone who wants to lock up all AIDS sufferers is not a “great person.”
I would suggest to make a complaint at the TVNZ website, whenever they will use biased BBC climate cange stories in the future, as use of such material is in breach of TVNZ charter:
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/tvnz_story_skin/111535?format=html
So you want TVNZ to ignore the science and give creationists and other nutters equal time?
Evidence suggests that snerkersnerk is actually a Perl script, or blog bot, returning canned responses based on a limited dictionary, designed to disrupt threads, similar to a virus.
I see. Deniers are allowed to repeat themselves for eternity, but using the same response to their illogical claims is terrible indeed. Double standards are great!
Its about giving peer reviewed science that differs from the IPCC party line a say and moreover avoiding scare stories which are propagated by media blitz networks around the world and typically based on rubbish.
It is about doing in the media as well, what the Interacademy Council asked the IPCC to change, and which they refused to do.
The peer reviewed science is being dealt with in journals like “Nature” and “Science”, which you seem to think are part of some massive conspiracy. The media’s job is to reflect the scientific consensus.
It doesn’t matter if you don’t like scare stories. Giving climate deniers and other science deniers equal air time would be insane.
As for the IAC, you dishonestly ignored this quote again:
“the Committee found that the IPCC assessment process has been successful overall”
You have to read a report and not only its headline (especially true for investigations into itself), if you are interested in the contents. And the IAC is asking disturbingly for consideration of alternative viewpoints, as they have been omitted by the IPCC, as well as the BBC.
The IAC warned against “confirmation bias” and recommended that “Lead Authors should explicitly document that a range of scientific viewpoints has been considered” and that Review Editors and Coordinating Lead Authors should check that “due consideration was given to properly documented alternative views”
The implication is that, at present, these things do not happen: Lead Authors in some cases fail to give consideration to a range of scientific views, and nobody verifies whether they have done so.
The IPCC did not implement any of the IAC’s criticism, nor did the BBC consider the IAC’s criticism for their own reporting. Worse, IPCC co-chair Stocker disturbingly worked in the opposite direction under false flag:
Even worse, there may be no implementation ever, because German Hyperalarmist Schellnhuber would like to see the next report to be the last.
You are the one who are quoting pieces of the report out of context and linking to sites that are dishonestly misrepresenting the report.
For example, that lead authors “should explicitly document that a range of scientific viewpoints has been considered.” OK, and? The report doesn’t say that they weren’t considered, only that the Lead Authors should be more specific about it.
So, busted.
Your cherry-picking and quote-mining is typical of creationists, climate deniers, and other science deniers.
In fact, the IAC clearly states:
In fact, the IAC clearly states (fixed formatting++):
As you can see, the report actually says that alternative views are thoroughly investigated (and that the ones that fail to hold up to scrutiny are rejected), but that they authors have not wasted their time listing everything they’ve considered.
This is a far cry from your misrepresentation of the recommendation on page 18 of the full report!
Also, even right-wing sites were going on and on and on about how the whole report was nothing but a watered-down whitewash. How come right-wingers always contradict each other?
Below is the full text for the recommandation:
None of it has been implemented, neither at the IPCC nor at the BBC, neither “having author teams with diverse viewpoints is the first step toward ensuring that a full range of thoughtful views are considered” nor “references to all papers that were considered by the authoring team and describe the authors’ rationale for arriving at their conclusions”
You may argue that it doesn’t matter, but obviously it does matter, because not a single recommandation has been implemented. Lead authors with background in green lobby organisations or re-insurance companies or similar are still all over the place in the new report, and lead authors evaluating their own work is common practise.
—————————-
“Lead Authors should explicitly document that a range of scientific viewpoints has been considered, and Coordinating Lead Authors and Review Editors should satisfy themselves that due consideration was given to properly documented alternative views.”
“Handling the full range of views
An assessment is intended to arrive at a judgment of a topic, such as the best estimate of changes in average global surface temperature over a specified time frame and its impacts on the water cycle. Although all reasonable points of view should be considered, they need not be given equal weight or even described fully in an assessment report. Which alternative viewpoints warrant mention is a matter of professional judgment. Therefore, Coordinating Lead Authors and Lead Authors have considerable influence over which viewpoints will be discussed in the process. Having author teams with diverse viewpoints is the first step toward ensuring that a full range of thoughtful views are considered. Equally important is combating confirmation bias—the tendency of authors to place too much weight on their own views relative to other views (Jonas et al., 2001). As pointed out to the Committee by a presenter and some questionnaire respondents, alternative views are not always cited in a chapter if the Lead Authors do not agree with them. Getting the balance right is an ongoing struggle. However, concrete steps could also be taken. For example, chapters could include references to all papers that were considered by the authoring team and describe the authors’ rationale for arriving at their conclusions.”
Dear Sirs
An open minded attitude is the scientific one. BTW You cannot deny climate. That is not logic. Climate change, however, has been happening since the world began. Often in the Holocene period (qv) it has been warmer than now. The Greek and Roman period was warmer than this. but it has been colder in the past thousand years from time to timeRemember that Earth has had recurrent Ice Ages punctuated by interglacials. It is entirely possible that we are at the end of an interglacial ask a geologist. and ask a paleoclimatologist. it would be nice to hear from such scientists on the radio and tv. We learned all this in the 1960s at Edinburgh University it’s not new . Check the libraries, read books.
I sign myself
An old student of the past
That’s a nice list of creationist, I mean climate denier, straw men you’ve got there. And “climate denier” is a term to describe someone who denies the scientific consensus on AG.
If you honestly think that anyone is claiming that the climate has not changed in the past, you have obviously never checked libraries or read books.
Old student? Old denier, more like.
Snerkerssnerk, you may not be aware of that.
Your writing style is disturbing. It may be because you may not living in New Zealand or not know the people there. It is a country of friendly people, where people of every angle of the society (except the Greens) talk to each other, and love to discuss. And they do this respectfully and based on reason.
Your rants are based on insult, smear, labelling. And appeal to authority to turn off a discussion does not convince but raises a red flag in open minded person.
Many thanks for all of the comments that address snerksnerks comments. As you will all have noticed, snerksnerk likes to throw around words like denier. Snerksnerk did so in another post, and also gave a definition of denier, saying that skeptics ‘will come to accept AGW’, proposing that those who do not accept this are ‘deniers’.
In response to this, I noted that the targets of the ‘denier’ labels all accept the idea that CO_2 will have a positive warming influence, and therefore accept the principle of AGW. I therefore said the following:
“Therefore, on snerksnerk’s current formulation of what constitutes a ‘denier’, snerksnerk would have to retract the labels of ‘denier’ that have been made in previous comments over previous posts for people who are not, by snerksnerk’s own definition, ‘deniers’.”
Snerksnerk makes no such retraction, and continues to use the term for people who, by the definition of ‘denier’ given, are not ‘deniers’. Indeed, snerksnerk still continues to throw around the word ‘denier’ and other ad hominem attacks in this comment section. In consideration of the frequency with which the word is used, can snerksnerk show that any of those who are labelled as deniers are indeed deniers, by snerksnerk’s own definition of the label? He will not, of course, be able to do so, as none of those labelled by snerksnerk are ‘deniers’.
Or, as I asked in the last post, if snerksnerk means people who question catastrophic AGW are ‘deniers’, then snerksnerk should clarify this. Alternatively, if standing by the original definition, snerksnerk should retract the labels. I suspect that snerksnerk has not responded as catastrophic AGW is predicated upon models that are more than a little imperfect, rather than on observation.
I could add my thoughts on those that throw around terms like Denier etc, but unfortunately it wouldn’t add to the discussion and would end up in more slanging matches.
Our host does provide some well researched articles on energy and climate policy, and I hope that we can keep the discussions polite and civil.