On 03/12/2011 00:29, Gib Bogle wrote:
On 3/12/2011 2:58 a.m., The Natural Philosopher wrote:
...
Despite Martins personal insinuations, I am very much balanced on the
fence. Although playing devils advocate is a good technique to expose
warmist trolls.

If you sup with the devil you must expect to be tainted by that action.

In short the only thing I am sure of is that there is very little
certainty in the predictions of ANYONE.

Failure to admit this, makes me suspicious at a human level, of those
who want to close all controversy and announce that the science is
settled.

I object to you posting deliberately misleading denier propaganda which
combines truths, half truths and downright barefaced lies as the
Register article that you posted here did. You were perfectly content to
mislead everyone here if you had not been called on it.

That is deeply disturbing,: Irrespective of whether AGW is wrong,
slightly right or a complete and accurate picture, the way its being
handled is an utter disgrace and has put science back years in terms of
public opinion.

Unfortunately it is the ultra-right American free market think tanks and
their delightful allies in the Murdock press notably Faux News that are
responsible for the publics distrust of science and scientists. If you
claim that all these scientists are corrupt and only in it for the money
enough times the average punter will start to believe it.

I don't think many academic scientists are in it for the money.

I have always preserved what I regard as a healthy level of scepticism
about global warming, especially on the issue of our ability to do
anything constructive about it. The stories in the press are often
extremely superficial and scare-mongering - about what I've come to
expect where scientific matters are concerned. But when I see the amount
of misinformation and pro-business propaganda being pumped out by
right-wingers in the US, much of it through Murdoch's channels, I
develop sympathy for the climate scientists who are being attacked for
reasons that have much more to do with politics than with science.

One of the discoverers of the Antarctic ozone hole is a personal friend.
He still gets death threats from demented Americans for publishing that
piece of research. Having seen what "deniers for hire" did to vilify
those researchers to try and discredit them I am more inclined to give
other climate researchers the benefit of the doubt.

How is it that denial of human-influenced climate-change, of the need to
regulate industry to limit pollution (unrelated to greenhouse effect),
and of the reality of evolution have all become articles of faith for
the right wing? My take is that in the first two cases there is an
obvious financial benefit to some very powerful corporations (important
sources of campaign funds), while the third is a way of mobilising the
know-nothing segment of society. In other words, intellectual dishonesty
rules.

You blame the climate scientists for the way the issue is being handled.
I see the completely cynical politicisation of the issue by so-called
conservatives as more responsible.

If you want to check the credentials of AGW deniers look back to see
what they have said about smoking tobacco and CFCs/ozone layer. It is a
very good heuristic for spotting "deniers for hire". If they have lied
for money twice before why on Earth should you trust them this time?

Regards,
Martin Brown