My Photo
Mobilise this Blog

Google

InvestigateDaily

INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.TV

Kiwiblog

New Zealand Conservative

InvestigatePodcast

AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] investigatemagazine.com and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« BREAKING NEWS: Major error found in flagship IPCC WG1 report | Main | Hockey-stick's Michael Mann under deeper investigation »

Comments

David Baigent

The "Global Warming Science Fiction" is settled then !!!

Fark

PhD students, that's not much better that kindergarten is it?

antipodean59

"PhD students, that's not much better that kindergarten is it?"

Na! Post Hole Diggers.

CM

>>>...the Working Group 1 chapters relied on...<<<

Hang on. Where is the actual analysis which demonstrates how entire chapters RELY on these Master's theses? That implies (explcitly) that without the theses the chapters would fall apart.

You'd never in a million years allow climate scientists to make such a leap. Why are you allowed to?

AGW IZ DOGMA

CM,

Oh the many ways that the AGW/ACC proponents have for reversing an argument and putting others on the defensive. It's not our job to prove AGW/ACC wrong. It's their job to prove it right.

If you want to see how real science works, look into the case of the lost neutrinos:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/neutrino/dancing.html

When EVERYTHING did NOT add up, the scientists kept working at it until it did. They didn't just fudge the numbers to save themselves time.

I don't know how criminal prosecutions work outside of the U.S., but we have a policy of "Innocent until proven guilty." The AGW proponents are the prosecution and the human race (especially those of us in the more developed countries) are the defendants. An impartial jury would find us innocent. If you want to declare yourself guilty go ahead. We'd be glad to carry out the sentence you would lay upon the rest of us.

CM

>>>They didn't just fudge the numbers to save themselves time.<<<

Where have the climate change numbers been fudged?

As for the rest - climate change presents a pretty serious risk. It's not binary as you're suggesting (guilty or not guilty). We have to continually evaluate the risk based on what we know and can predict. And we can decide to do nothing, or a whole range of somethings. Based on the level of risk, it seems pretty clear that doing nothing would be the worst option.

Ian Wishart

But doing what exactly, CM?

You sound like Jones to Capt Mainwaring in Dad's Army.

The planet is warming, but if that warming is mostly natural, then all the 350.org bs and Gareth Renowden bs ain't going to amount to a hill of beans in actually preventing the inevitable.

Better to simply adapt to a warmer climate, than spend money trying to emulate Canute.

CM

>>>But doing what exactly, CM?<<<

Well clearly hat's up to all of us to decide, via our elected representatives.

>>>The planet is warming, but if that warming is mostly natural, then all the 350.org bs and Gareth Renowden bs ain't going to amount to a hill of beans in actually preventing the inevitable.<<<

Part of the necessary risk assessment is determining whether it's natural or not. The evidence is heavily weighting to it not being natural. And yes I'm reading your book and it's trying to convince me otherwise but it just doesn't present the body of knowledge in a balanced way. You're like a judge only listening to the defence.

>>>Better to simply adapt to a warmer climate, than spend money trying to emulate Canute.<<<

If the evidence was heavily weighted towards the rate of change being natural, I would agree.

Term Paper

Thanks you for sharing and may you have many thought provoking conversations!

The comments to this entry are closed.