I mean Dave the poster on this blog, not Miliband, or Cameron, etc (though they might be a smidge miffed, too)
I wouldn't have even bothered with this, but he is former editor of New Scientist:
An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change
'I am prepared to listen to all sides of an argument before trying to come to a decision, but I have to say I am swayed not only by numbers in documents, but the numbers of qualified persons producing them. It's looking about 2000 to 2 so far (I exagerate, or what we science types call 'choosing the numbers we like to prove our case', for effect). And when I see the words 'in our forthcoming book' I'm guessing I have to fork out to get this side in itsentirety, which further clouds my view.
Which is frustrating, because I am always up for balance.
I have to agree with any poster (post moderation) who advocates erring on the side of caution, as opposed to a rather Medieval method that seems to work on the basis of 'Ok, you were right, we are both toast. But I had a blast these last ten years'.
I also am more prone to pay attention and support anyone who comes up with rational, positive solutions that work within today's framework, rather than launching yet more intellectual artillery exchanges on how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin, while the clock ticks down.
But I agree, flushing gazillions down some unproven solutions to unspecified problems and an unknown EnviROI is not the way to go either.'
1 comment:
Yes, I'd read this too - and it did prickle me somewhat. I don't think anyone with a rational mind would even question the likelihood of a relationship between the earth's climate and the cosmic radiation and particulate output of our sun. What irritates me is to imply that this is causing global warming without the failsafe of adequate scientific data; and in ignoring the atmospheric CO2 level evidence, which is overwhelming.
As we have both observed before, the IPCC outputs were certain to stimulate an ever increasing set of contra arguments, and they are starting to do so, however theoretical they are.
I'm afraid that I have to err on the side of the collective, albeit probablistic, logic of 2000+ eminent scientists from all persuasions; at least until someone comes up with some genuine concrete evidence, not hypothesis, to the contrary.
The simplest response is often the best, and I can't do better than to quote the inventor of the 'Peter Priniciple'.
"Against logic there is no armour like ignorance."
Lawrence J. Peter
Post a Comment