View Single Post
Old 16th Jun 2011, 12:59
  #8209 (permalink)  
MagnusP
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edinburgh and 3C
Age: 67
Posts: 195
You rather miss the point, there, Chuks. What climate rationalists do is consider analyses of data, statistical methods and so on, and permit those to raise a doubt about the veracity of statements made by the strident warmists. Those same rationalists also raise doubts about the results presented by the pro-CAGW camp when the latter have been proven, often by their own words, to cherry-pick data, use incorrect statistical methods, and attempt to subvert the peer-review process in order to suppress opposing views.

The sceptics challenge the data, the results and the modelling of the pro-warm camp. The warmists attack the sceptics ad hominem without attempting to address the points raised in the papers.

That's not science, that's character assassination, and should play no part in this debate.

I don't give a stuff whether the likes of Pachauri, Jones, Mann et al believe in dowsing, UFOs or a great sky pixie. I want some assurance that the way they address the specific issue of warming is valid, and just now there is sufficient evidence that it isn't. Why do alarmists pick on things like that to discredit the scientist, rather than addressing points raised. Could it be because they have no answer?
MagnusP is offline