On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 05:50:45 +0100, Michael Lewis <[email protected]>
wrote:
He raises no points regarding the science of climate variability and
he only addresses "Industry front groups and compliant scientists," as
if there is no science behind skepticism about AGW. He is responding as
a Public Relations flack, not a scientist.
Yes, that is what the book is about. He isn't criticizing "alternate"
scientific hypotheses that explain the current rate of climate change, his book is about
a campaign of consciously teaching the controversy.
Furthermore, he ignores the very same tactics and techniques by climate
alarmists to cry wolf about
global arming.
Forgetting for a moment, of course, that "climate alarmists" have scientific consensus on
their side, right? If there is such a "very same" campaign for the side of science,
please elucidate.
--
/ Per
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
