I was over at Climate Conversation where the conspiracy theories rumble on and they are all in a lather of denial over their devastating loss in the New Zealand High Court. There are so many comments there to choose from, with most of them suggesting that because the judge didn’t rule on the science, they didn’t really lose. I could do a whole post talking about why courts rely on expert opinion but that would just be stating the obvious. Anyway, there is one comment there that was astounding for the number of completely unsubstantiated nonsensical statements. It’s almost as if this guy thinks that if you simply state something and try to sound confident, then it must be true. Anyway, here is the comment. Brace yourself.
*sigh*. So much crap in so little space. Where to start? I shall go over to Climate Conversation and invite this person to come and back up the two major bits of bullshit. First though, I’ll deal with the last bit. In reference to the ‘AGW establishment’, he says, “If the evidence was so ‘overwhelming’ they’d provide it and debate it.”
There are so many papers that have been published providing evidence for AGW and human-induced climate change. The scientists who publish these papers do so to put their evidence in the public domain. It is not up to them to come to some denial den and debate their results with ignorant morons. It is up to other scientists to replicate the research and see if they come up with different results. That is how the system works. I get the feeling though that this guy is not really interested in seeing the evidence.
Anyway, here are my requests for this guy.
1. Please provide references for the peer-reviewed scientific papers you claim show ‘how wrong the AGW hypothesis is’.
2. Name the AGW scientists that you claim are ‘giving up on AGW’.
Given that you seem to place a high level of importance on evidence (mentioning it 4 times) it’s time to back your ridiculous assertions with some. After all, failure to do so will make you appear extremely hypocritical.
Mike, I suspect that:
1. The peer-reviewed papers will be those like Watts et al (2012) which I believe will be published in the Energy and Environment journal (the journal of choice for those with contrarian views).
2. The scientists will be those for whom climatology is a black box; and those, like Ivar Giaever, have always been ideologically opposed to the idea of humans accepting any responsibility for damaging their environment.
http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com/2011/09/29/high-profile-scientist-resigns-over-climate-change/
No doubt Martin. Actually, I’m expecting him to offer up Andrew’s long list at Poptech. Apparently the 900+ is now 1100+. Of course, on that list, he’s still got the paper from the journal with the dog astrology paper and a number of E&E papers.
Reblogged this on acckkii.
I have been encouraging deniers to get their multitudious proofs of the fraud of ACC published. Goddard, and SUYTS have enough material for HUNDREDS of papers that disprove almost every single element of ACC, and yet they refuse to publish them. I have accused them of being traitors to science by allowing all this fraud to continue when they have all the evidence anyone would ever need, so their refusal to publish or at least take someone like Lintzen or Christie step by step through all their work and co-sign it makes them complicit in the fraud.
Ah but Tony, you know they can’t publishe because they don’t have any pals at those journals. Everybody knows you can only publish if it goes through pal review. It’s much better to follow Anthony Watts’ example and put it through blog review. Much more scientifically rigorous.
T’was only a flesh wound Mike, he easily countered with a rebutted paper and a Nova blog post, A true black knight to the end
*sigh*
Pingback: Another Week of GW News, September 9, 2012 – A Few Things Ill Considered