--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" <compost...@...> wrote: <snip> > Of course Moonbat also goes on (in amusing fashion) to > make it clear that none of this threatens the doctrine > he espouses one iota (and on that point the Moonbat is > surely quite right): > > http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/11/23/the-knights- > carbonic/
LOL funny. He reproduces "the damning email which confirms that the entire science of global warming is indeed a scam." It's addressed to The Knights Carbonic from their leader. An excerpt: "Our co-option of the physical world has been just as successful. The thinning of the Arctic ice cap was a masterstroke. The ring of secret nuclear power stations around the Arctic Circle, attached to giant immersion heaters, remains undetected, as do the space-based lasers dissolving the world's glaciers. "Altering the migratory and reproductive patterns of the world's wildlife has proved more challenging. Though we have now asserted control over the world's biologists, there is no accounting for the unauthorised observations of farmers, gardeners, bird-watchers and other troublemakers. We have therefore been forced to drive migrating birds, fish and insects into higher latitudes, and to release several million tonnes of plant pheromones every year to accelerate flowering and fruiting. None of this is cheap, and ever more public money, secretly diverted from national accounts by compliant governments, is required to sustain it." > Or try this very thoughtful analysis from Judy Curry, > a climate scientist who again is NOT in the denier camp: > > http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7826 > > "My perspective is as a climate researcher that is not > involved directly in any of the controversies and > issues in the purloined HADCRU emails, but as one that > is familiar with this research, the surrounding > controversies, and many of the individuals who sent > these emails" > > I think what she has to say about tribalism is > especially to the point. And this: > > "Particularly on a topic of such great public > relevance, scientists need to consider carefully > skeptical arguments and either rebut them or learn > from them. Trying to suppress them or discredit the > skeptical researcher or blogger is not an ethical > strategy and one that will backfire in the long run" She makes excellent sense. While insisting that greater transparency is critical, she notes: "The motivation of scientists in the pro AGW [anthropogenic, or manmade, global warming] tribes appears to be less about politics and more about professional ego and scientific integrity as their research was under assault for nonscientific reasons (I'm sure there are individual exceptions, but this is my overall perception)." > (Warning to Dorko-Reflex: You will have to stray on to > Bad Guy Steve McIntyre's web site to read that > article. Is it safe? Are your browser's parental > controls enabled? And do you see that? There are OTHER > ways of discussing the subject other than "debunking" > and ad hominems!) I was surprised that most of the concerns of the commenters on her essay did not appear to be political, even when they had disagreements. This--and what McIntyre says on the "Blog Rules and Road Map" page-- changes my perspective on him somewhat with regard to the integrity of his skepticism, if not its validity. It's virtually impossible for the layperson to have any clear insight into the central scientific issue, both because it's so incredibly complicated and because of the political overlay. One automatically distrusts skepticism emanating from the right wing because of its very long and increasingly appalling record of dishonesty and hypocrisy. But the hacked email flap, if one can disregard all the absurd political fulminations and focus on the reactions of the scientific community--which, at least on this blog, appear to constitute a consensus among both skeptics and proponents of AGW in favor of getting everything out in the open--may serve to demonstrate that the skeptics' scientific case requires serious consideration and squeaky-clean efforts at rebuttal. In his Salon column, "How the World Works," the indispensable Andrew Leonard addresses the flap (he supports the AGW thesis, but he's relentlessly fair-minded): "Bluntly put, the climate scientists who have devoted their careers to proving global warming is happening do not believe that Steve McIntyre is a legitimate scientist whose real goal is the advancement of climate change science. They believe his primary goal is to undermine their work by any means necessary, and that any data they give him will be misused, abused and ultimately become political fodder for the conservative forces who are fighting any efforts to do anything about climate change.... "From the perspective of the climate scientists involved, it seems clear that they did not trust McIntyre, did not feel that his FOI requests were legitimate scientific inquiry, and were determined to do whatever possible to resist him. "Does that exculpate them? Absolutely not. Does it explain why Phil Jones thought that private e-mails from climate researchers discussing the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC should be deleted? Nope, not at all. Does it demonstrate that scientific progress, despite supposedly being based on the accumulation of data and the testing of theories, can be a messy, messy business, full of personal intrigue and antipathies? Absolutely yes." Read more: http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works/2009/11/23/the_case_of_the_hacked_climate_change_e_mails_part_2/index.html http://tinyurl.com/yk9pskl Given that the future of life on the planet may depend on it, the cases both for and against AGW *must* be scoured of extra-scientific garbage.
