Quote:
Originally Posted by RedHeadPeter
. It's obvious there is no reasoning with these people and one can only shake your head and wonder what their motives might be, beyond talking up the price of their oil company shares.
I'm tempted (oh - go on I just gave in to temptation) to wonder what crossover there might be between Climate Change deniers and HIV-Aids deniers.
|
take note that in this thread the people throwing out accusations,name calling(deniers is a perjorative) and wondering about the motives of those involved are the believers.
For future reference my only motive is that I don't believe much of the AGW science i have seen and read over the last 20 years. Especially that of those that say its settled and then ridicule or ignore others who provide quite well researched evidence to the contrary. I have never owned oil shares and believe in HIV/aids as I have seen people die of it.
This release of info from the CRU's database has thrown all of that "settled" science into even further doubt. It shows that(among other problems) the peer review process was circumvented by many climate researches connected or working with CRU because they were "anonymously" reviewing each others work and that of critics.
As for that BBC chart earlier- look at the attributions for the temperature data. Mann from Penn State and Hadly and CRU. If thats been put up since Mann's work on temperature reconstructions has been shown to be incorrect than the BBC has made an egregious error. If its been put up since the CRU data came out then it juts ridiculously pushing an agenda.
OF course the BBC's coverage of Climate change has been shown to quite prone to errors and bias in the past. Many on both sides have been saying not to bother reading what they put out.
The Times is a worse offender. They write alarming stories that on their face are not true and hardly any media bother to correct them. In fact much of the media just Parrots their stories.
Latest incident would probably be the story involving the "Opening of the NE Passage" for which they not only wrote the columns but plastered subway stations with alarming posters.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/0...ssage-transit/
Of course you could call that a "deniers blog" and scoff and question his motives OR you could use it as starting point to research the claims and find that he's correct.