By Bob Carter
"The latest IPCC report, published on Friday, is the most alarming yet: not for its claims of human-caused global warming, writes the leading environmental scientist Bob Carter, but for its lack of scientific rigour.
Yet we do not read about natural climate change in the everyday news. Instead, newspapers, radio and television stations bludgeon us with a merciless stream of human-caused global-warming alarmism, egged on by a self-interested gaggle of journalists, environmental lobbyists, scientific and business groups, church leaders and politicians, all of whom preach that we must "stop climate change" by reducing human CO2 emissions."
7 comments:
He said the role of peer review in scientific literature was overstressed, and whether or not a scientist had been funded by the fossil fuel industry was irrelevant to the validity of research. "I don't think it is the point whether or not you are paid by the coal or petroleum industry," said Professor Carter. "I will address the evidence." [7]
Carter is a member of the right-wing think tank the Institute of Public Affairs [8], and a founding member of the Australian Environment Foundation, a front group set up by the Institute of Public Affairs.
(from SourceWatch)
I know you're going to say I'm attacking his motives and funding, and all that. But you keep linking to op-ed pieces by people on rightwing groups, getting funding by Exxon, etc.
Yet you dont see the hypocrisy and the irony of continuously citing Sourcewatch to refute them, considering that they are funded by the extreme left wing liberal militant wing and admitted anti-American Soros Group.
I dont imagine Sourcewatch reveals AL Gore's financial stakes in this game. The money made from his movie, his speaking fees, the strip mining royalties hes received from his Tenn property, how much he makes from his "carbon offset" company or how much he stands to profit from the $100 a pop Live Earth concert series.
The only difference is the sources I cite make actual points, the people you link, well theirs as well as your only argument is that my side doesnt deserve to have a point, the debate is over and they are somehow discredited for receiving funding from interests you deem unworthy and not credible. I could say the same thing about Greenpeace or numerous other Big Green Corps funding this ruse.
Everybody has a vested interest one way or another, there is very little altruism involved here on BOTH sides.
But I don't expect you to understand how incredibly weak your repeated argument is, as that is the basis of your entire political ideology and would force you to do some actual thinking of your own for once and I think you are afraid you might find the well to be empty.
If you are incapable of debating the merits of the scientific points Carter makes, then keep your opinions of his motive to yourself, for as a stand alone argument it is "irrelevant to the validity of research" unless you are able to question the actual validity of the research, which it seems you are not.
OK, let's get into the science. Check out this site:
http://www.realclimate.org
Answers the skeptics rather well.
I would kindly ask you to put the authors behind realclimate.org through the same scrutiny as you put my sources, and then get back to me.
I think you will find their history of wiki smearmongering and auto-fellating most interesting, not to mention the scientifically embarrasing hockey stick graph.
You want science? Ok:
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=20742
Gary, we could go back and forth citing different PHD's and different studies all day, and what would that prove?????
Oh yeah, it would PROVE that the debate is NOT over, and the science is NOT settled, and there is NO consensus.
Can't you admit that if we can find literally THOUSANDS of scientists that are NOT paid by big oil, in this country alone, that disagree with algore then at least there is no consensus and the debate is not over?
You do not seem to understand the difference between "consensus" and "unanimity". Most scientists in this field, over 90% by some estimates, support the reality of anthropogenic global warming. That's consensus. I admit that not every scientist in the world agrees with the consensus.
Post a Comment