"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." Richard P. Feynman

Friday, May 7, 2010

Climate Debate Derailed Say Scientists

 The ABC shows it's bias in reporting on the de-railing of Climate Debate as if it were something "deeply disturbing", unlike sceptics like myself who see it as a victory for rationalism and common sense.The ABC obtains the opinion of a Warmist scientist but no sceptical opinion. Since in the latest polls the majority of Australians do not believe in the AGW  scam,the ABC is being arrogant and elitist in not obtaining a sceptic's comment as well for balance.

Two-hundred-and-fifty scientists have signed an open letter saying they are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation in attacks on climate scientists, saying political action has been derailed.

The letter, published in the journal Science, says the recent attacks on climate researchers are being run by special interests and the debate must address the compelling evidence of climate change.
The leftist ABC does not mention that recently 31,486 scientists signed a declaration disagreeing completely with the "science" of man-made global warming, making the evidence not so compelling to the informed voter.
Professor Kurt Lambeck, from the Australian National University, says the Federal Government cannot afford to allow any more delays.

"The negative aspects of the debate have been very unfortunate because I am sure that they're one of the elements in this delay in starting the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme," he said.
Professor Lambeck, who is also a member of the US National Academy of Science, says further delays on action must not be an option.

"It's a call really for rational debate to get the facts out, not to have that discussion deflected by extreme views that are not really based on the science," he said.
The more of the "facts" that are out the more dodgy they look - hopelessly inaccurate computer models using cherry-picked and fudged temperature data do not generate scientific evidence and more and more of the public are realising this making political action more difficult.
 Bryan Walsh of Time Magazine has predictably come out on the side of the poor harassed and misunderstood scientists who have been cleared of any wrongdoing by a committee of their peers [all global warming believers ] who didn't see anything wrong with data-tampering and destruction,interfering with the peer review process, hiding unwanted data with "a trick" and a host of other minor peccadillos - they are just the sort of things scientists normally do!
Ultimately, that's what may lay at stake here — whether politics can be kept from interfering with science. In truth, climate change is as much a political problem as it is a scientific one, and no one would argue that science is free of bias. But science does have a self-correcting mechanism — in fact, this week the InterAcademy Council, a coalition of global scientific organizations, named a 12-member committee to review the workings of the IPCC. Scientists have learned from Climategate that they need to be more open.

Bryan Walsh's solution is to set up another whitewash committee ,specially selected to justify the IPCC and he calls this openness! All this committee will do is to recommend some cosmetic changes , fiddle with the bureacracy and make sure all the references used in future will be triple-plated ,peer-reviewed, sceptic-proof,unassailable papers based on the same old flakey temperature data and crappy computer models .
As a self-correcting mechanism this committee would be about as useful as tits on a bull!

H/T Tommo.

1 comment:

  1. Friday, May 7, 2010
    Climate debate derailed: scientists

    In the Australian News tonight Scientists are claiming that the Climate Debate has been derailed! (red comments from Just ME)

    The article found on the ABC website says:

    Two-hundred-and-fifty scientists have signed an open letter saying they are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation in attacks on climate scientists, saying political action has been derailed. What are the credentials of these scientists? how many of them are actually working in the field of climate science? Who's payroll are they on, and how much funding are they losing whilst we argue the premise of AGW?