It's a good laugh though, innit. I mean, on the one hand, the 'Climate Science Coalition' has popped out a letter largely identical to their last one, asking (and fair enough, I guess) for a Royal Commission of Inquiry or similar into the science behind the popular conception of AGW - Anthropogenic Global Warming.
The request is made on the basis that information out there in the public sphere might not be sufficiently balanced, and that a greater degree of scientific rigour is necessary for individual CSC members to be able to easily sleep at night. Fair enough, fair enough...
But then they cock it up something chronic, with the statement that the information supporting AGW is *cough*:
"...often tainted by the emotional arguments of the environmental movement and
seldom stands up to objective scientific analysis."
I suggest the CSC needs to urgently attend to the beam in it's own eye, before casting aspersions at the AGW mote. This is an organisation which actively endorses and frequently quotes Ken Ring, a figure of fun for many in climatological (and indeed meteorological) circles.
Yes, the CSC would have us believe that we are being hoodwinked by Global Warming-advocating charlatans who use their malign influence to get published in little rags like, say, Science and Nature, New Scientist, and hundreds more. On the contrary, they would have you listen to their mate Ken Ring, a nutbar who believes the moon controls the Earth's weather, and writes almanacs which from what I have read, are around about as accurate as your daily horoscope.
Don't get me wrong, I have an open mind when it comes to the issue of AGW. I read very widely, and smugly reckon I have a fair understanding of the major issues, including prominent counter-theories from the denier camp. But for the Climate Science Coalition, which is composed of well-known agenda-driven free-market advocaters (Owen McShane, anyone) to claim a moral high ground on objectivity... It's a bit much.
As an addendum, I note with terror that the Coalition is now headed by renowned climate theorist, the Rear Admiral Jack Welch (retired). But really, who is this guy and why has he been chosen as the figurehead? Is he like a Charlton Heston to the NRA? Curiouser and curiouser...
6 comments:
do they really use Ken Ring as a quoteworthy figure?
the mind boggles. may as well add a cohort of gooze-liver reading soothsayers to their staff...
goose-liver, that is.
gooze-liver is nice as well, though.
For real - you should swing through the comments with the highest numbers on their website - essentially four or five commenters attempting to take Ring to task for his bizarre take on science. Crazy stuff, really...
I say briefly: Best! Useful information. Good job guys.
»
I like it! Good job. Go on.
»
How often do you hear about positives to global warming? Less harsh winters, more food growable in northern areas, more CO2 means plants grow better (greenhouses sometimes add co2 to increase production). Why only negatives?
Is signing an agreement like Kyoto, but not actually noticably reducing CO2 emmisions worth anything?
Post a Comment