Here's a reply refuting David Evans' position.
This guy seems to know what he's talking about and has the credentials. Like many of his peers, though, he tends to be extremely dismissive of skeptics: "I've got limited patience for wrestling with pigs (you both get mucky, but the pig enjoys it)".
Perhaps a reasonable attitude among intellectual peers, but it looks very arrogant to the great unwashed.
Regardless, the whole thread presents some interesting debate.
An attempt to find a reasonable position for a lay person on Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.
About this blog
It has been put to me by someone much smarter than my good self that those who question the seriousness of human-induced carbon emissions are likely to be corrupt hacks funded by carbon-emitting industries. At the very least ignorant bigots. I'd assumed that there were two sides to the story.
The problem for most of us is that we must rely on experts. But how to grade their conclusions?
There seems to be a scientific majority - with commensurate media and political support - supporting Catastrophic AGW theory.
But there are alternative viewpoints that seem reasonable, at least to the lay person. Is it right to silence them on the basis that their words are potentially dangerous to humanity?
Obviously human-caused carbon emissions exist, and they presumably have some effect on climate.
So just how much effect is AGW having so far?
What are we to do?
How dire are the consequences if we don't adopt the charter of the IPCC?
Most voters are not scientists.
The problem for most of us is that we must rely on experts. But how to grade their conclusions?
There seems to be a scientific majority - with commensurate media and political support - supporting Catastrophic AGW theory.
But there are alternative viewpoints that seem reasonable, at least to the lay person. Is it right to silence them on the basis that their words are potentially dangerous to humanity?
Obviously human-caused carbon emissions exist, and they presumably have some effect on climate.
So just how much effect is AGW having so far?
What are we to do?
How dire are the consequences if we don't adopt the charter of the IPCC?
Most voters are not scientists.
Followers
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(40)
-
▼
January
(40)
- Bob Carter
- Popular Mechanics
- Richard Lindzen
- Roger W Cohen
- The Cornwall Alliance
- Roy W Spencer
- Continuous adjustment
- Walter Cunningham
- Tim Lambert
- Trends
- American Physical Society
- Jon Jenkins
- Plan B
- Nature again
- World Climate Report
- Nature
- William M Connolley
- McKitrick paper
- Climate Audit
- Subtotal
- Consensus?
- Source data
- Richard L Smith
- Stunts
- Something unexpected
- Friends of Science
- The Met
- Science Daily
- David Bellamy
- James Annan
- Scientific American
- David Evans
- Joanne Nova
- Don J Easterbrook
- New Scientist
- The benefits
- Denial immoral
- Interference
- MIT
- The first juicy seam
-
▼
January
(40)
No comments:
Post a Comment