Monday, May 18, 2009

AGW denier says peer-review is a public enemy

James Dellingpole plumbs the depth of his intellect in The Spectator:

I don’t bait greens only for fun. I do it because they’re public enemy number one

How so?

Here is what’s so terrifying about the modern green movement: its complete refusal to accept that anyone who disagrees with it can be anything other than wilfully perverse, certifiably insane or secretly in the pay of Big Oil.

Or stupid and easily influenced. Even if, for arguments sake, this really is what the MGM thinks, why would that make them public enemy number one unless you were perverse, certifiably insane or secretly in the pay of Big Oil? Deep down Dellingpole declares the fear that drives him to bait greens.

Indeed, it doesn’t even think of its ideological position as an ideological position any more, but as a scientific truth so comprehensively proven that there is no longer need for any debate.

There isn't any need for a debate about whether mankind's emissions cause global warming an will cause climate change. It's over. Dellingpole just does not like the inescapable conclusions of the body of peer-reviewed science. He wants a second opinion... from sources used by those secretly in the pay of Big Oil.

But what if they’re wrong? What if climate change is normal? What if the new hair-shirt chic is holding back economic recovery? What about the Kenyan green-bean growers — don’t they deserve to make a living too? What if the billions and billions of pounds being stolen from our wallets by our governments to ‘combat climate change’ are being squandered to no useful purpose? What if instead of alleviating the problem, misguided eco-zealots are actually making things worse?

That’s what I believe, anyway, and if there were space I’d be more than happy to explain why in lavish detail using all sorts of highly convincing evidence provided by top-notch scientists. Unfortunately, there isn’t, so you’ll have to go somewhere like, or the hilarious Planet Gore at National Review Online or the Watts Up With That blog for your ammo.

Climate science by fossil-fuel funded public relations, as opposed to peer-review publication, that's what Dellingpole roots for. And this is a guy who wants to believe he is rational. Truly:

...that the vast majority of so-called ‘deniers’ are motivated by a love of the planet every bit as intense as that of the ‘warmists’. It’s just that our love is maybe tempered with a touch more rationalism, that’s all.

As rational as deriving joy from baiting people because you don't like them facing realities that science informs about?


JC said...

Science is never settled, whether we cause GW or not, science is always in review, especially with regards to a phenomena with as many variables as climate change.

Anyone who thinks a scientific debate is over and settled for certain knows nothing about science or true scientific method.

Wadard said...

What crap! Oreskes has measured the consensus to be 100% and this has withstood any falsification.

The debate, that man's emissions contribute to the global warming we are measuring, is over.

JC said...

You think an opinion poll conducted by an individual who refused to poll known dissenters (like Zbigniew Jaworowski or Marcel Leroux for example) is an implementation of scientific method?

You think the experts ever agree 100% on anything? Really, you really believe that?

Please explain how you arrived at these conclusions, because it sounds like you're getting bent political statistics muddled up with science.

Wadard said...

Neither Zbigniew Jaworowski nor Marcel Leroux have published any of this supposedly famous dissent in peer-review papers, hey - or Oreskes would have picked it up, JC.

You can study her method, it's openly published, and reproduce the results for yourself. You are invited to try for yourself.

JC said...

A study of opinion based on interpretations of others' work is not science, so I won't be reproducing her results. Jaworowski has been peer reviewed, I don't know about Leroux.

You argue that there is 100% consensus?

There isn't.

Bye now.

Andrew said...

A few papers Oreskes missed...

450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming

Viagra Online said...

I have realized that this is such an interesting and concerning issue, which everyone must be aware of.
It is a shame when people don't pay attention to what they do, despite the fact they are harming the environment.