Well-heeled skeptics spin drivel in struggle to scorch the planet

Fri, 2007-02-23 12:27Bill Miller
Bill Miller's picture

Well-heeled skeptics spin drivel in struggle to scorch the planet

Our Australian friend Tim Lambert tipped DeSmog to this article in La Presse, Montreal’s largest newspaper, debunking the deniers’ arguments and linking them to such notorious organizations as the American Enterprise Institute, Cato Institute and Vancouver’s Fraser Institute.

Sebastian Weissenberger , professor of environmental science at Universite de Quebec a Montreal said skeptic-driven articles on climate change are not the usual peer-reviewed scientific essays but advocacy, pure and simple. Those who are true scientists usually are not climatologists.

Most interesting, Weissenberger says they always “use the same three or four arguments in denying climate change” and try to exploit the tendency of true scientists to speak in shades of grey rather than black and white, twisting their words to serve their skeptical purpose.

Here's the english version (kind of).

Comments

all over again. Opponents are linked to “notorious organizations” (while e.g. Suzuki is lying about his own funding), their arguments are said to constitute “advocacy” (whereas desmogblog pretends to provide objective information), and, last but not least, opponents are called “climate change deniers” (deliberately associating them with holocaust denial and flat earth type idiots). Very professional, Bill, your integrity is stellar!
It’s called “shooting the messenger. Slagging people who actually know how to think is the only arrow that the AGW cultists have left in their quiver.

Now you’re really starting to sound like the Ba’athist Iraqi Information Minister when American troops were knocking on Saddam’s door. “We’re holding the enemy at bay! America is sure to lose! Our day of victory will arrive in the coming hours!”

“skeptic-driven articles on climate change are not the usual peer-reviewed scientific essays but advocacy, pure and simple. Those who are true scientists usually are not climatologists.”

… and those who are climatoligists are either in the pay of evil capitalists, or are insane, or are actually zombie robots – or all of the above.

Remember, you read it on desmogblog.com first, folks!

Ignore the well-heeled skeptics. Only listen to poor, working class regular joes, like Al Gore and David Suzuki. They’re just regular guys, like you.

The Gore has spoken. There will be no further discussion.
Pro-AGW researchers tend to present results while refusing to divulge either the data sets or the process used to arrive that said results. Then, according to Wegman’s report to the US Congress, a rather small social group of “climatologist” peer reviews the work and the results are then presented as fact. Hunt (1991) holds that “Scientific knowledge thus rests on the bedrock of empirical testability.” Further to this assertion, Malhotra (1994) states that “Empirical replication depends on a comparison of “objective” observations of different researchers studying the phenomenon.” If researchers fail to provide data sets for comparison of objective observation, then there is no science. I am not trying to hold the pro-AGW researchers to the standard of absolute proof, but there has to be some debate and rigorous discussion. The pro-AGW climatologist may be right, but since they refuse to present the methodology and datasets, then it is pretty hard to have a debate. I have not seen any Pro-AGW researchers complaining that the author of a paper that disagreed with their position was refusing to make either the data sets or the processes available so that it could be debated and rigorously discussed. On the other hand I have seen for example MBH98: MBH98, the hockey stick. Mann and the team refused to release the methodology and datasets. They presented their results, the hockey stick, which was used to remove the Roman Warm Period, Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age while showing that the Modern Warming Period is exceptional. When Mann and the team were forced to present the methodology and datasets, the hockey stick was refuted by Wegman et al and the NAS. Wegman showed that Mann and his team got the math wrong (statistics) and NSA showed that use of Bristlecone Pines as proxies bad. The Hockey Stick was the turning point in the AGW theory, but no one knew that the RESULTS were flawed until after the RESULTS were used to change public opinion. The Hockey Stick is not the only RESULTS that being presented to prove the AGW Theory, but they are all using the “look at my RESULTS, no you cannot see my data sets or procedures!” So while I am unsure of what is the real impact of man on the climate, until they (the pro-AGW researchers) are willing to have full and open debate by releasing their data sets and procedures, I cannot take them on FAITH. That is a religion, not science.
[x]
Robert Grandjambe Jr. Shows DeSmog Sick Fish from Lake Athabasca

This is the second installment of a three-part series on Dr. John O'Connor, the family physician to first identify higher-than-average cancer rates and rare forms of cancer in communities downstream of the Alberta oilsands.

Part 2: Deformed Fish, Dying Muskrats Cause Doctor To Sound Alarm

When Dr. John O’Connor arrived in Fort Chipewyan in 2000, it took him a little while to get familiar with the ...

read more