Quote:
Originally Posted by Pastiche
Because that would mean he'd have to stop obfuscating and demonstrate his patent lack of understanding on this issue?
|
Was that really called for? Why is it unreasonable to challenge some of the patent answers from the climate change believers? Every week, some of the settled science facts are disproven or thrown into question. Assumptions of climate change science being based on only top-notch, peer-reviewed literature are being invalidated. The only fact is that there are very few facts to in which to base either position.
Stating "thousands of papers" and "thousands of scientists" support the AGW theory, does not make the theory a fact. And, in all reality, if there were such an abundance of such sound science, why did the IPCC base their reports on unsound science, misrepresentations and media soundbites? It should be bullet-proof.
I use links, because I don't feel like rehashing what has already been exhaustively documented. I don't feel like having the debate being about picking apart my own interpretation of someone else's research, debate or argument. I'm merely representing the alternative viewpoint which is valid regardless of your or my bias (and becoming more and more relevant as some threads in the AGW rope begin to fray.)
The Climategate emails did not write themselves and there are threads within that should be deeply concerning (and far transcend the oft-used "out of context" moniker.) Actions speak louder than reputation and credentials, especially if reputation and credentials are on the line.
Don't kill the messenger.