[comment] Gavin et. al, wondering if you could explain why you had Aaron Heurtas, the PR guy for the Union of Concerned Scientists, write your Open Letter to Heartland?
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2012/02/17/heartland.pdf
In the letter, you say you want “an honest, fact-based debate about the policy responses to climate change.”
Since you (and by you I mean most the “signers” of this open letter) were invited to the climate conferences sponsored by Heartland, and chose not to attend, does this mean that you all are now ready to engage in the Heartland climate conferences to debate the “deniers” and the “anti-climate” and “anti-science” people?
[Response: If Heartland was actually interested in debating policy options I wouldn't have any problem with them, and I would encourage others with ideas about policy to engage with them to their heart's content. Instead they spend their time throwing around false accusations, mangling the science, and attempting to shoot the messenger - and I strongly doubt they will suddenly stop doing so because I go to one of their meetings. In a world where we only have limited time to do the things we need to, arguing with people who think that every word I say is a lie is completely pointless. (PS. The letter was written by the people who signed it, and it's publication was coordinated by Aaron Huertas at UCS, a group (of which I'm a member) that has been very helpful in making making media connections for the scientists - you might have a list of editors of major news organisations at your fingertips, but I don't). - gavin]
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Gavin Schmidt tries to explain why he refuses to defend climate scam science at Heartland conferences
RealClimate - Comments on Free speech and academic freedom
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
A real scientist:
-- accepts the null hypothesis: theat s/he only has to be wrong once to be disproven
-- doesn't mind being wrong
-- accepts and respects challenges to hypothesis
There is no Einstein in this bunch of Schmidt, Mann, Hanson, etc.
Remarkable arrogance. He won't debate about what he's an expert in, climate science, he'll only debate where he's an amateur, public policy solutions.
And if you start arguing with dipschmidt about policy, that's a tacit admission that he and his fellow stable of frauds are entirely correct.
Tree rings are thermometers.
Weather balloons, which actually carry thermometers, are faulty because they don't show tropical warming.
Surface temps are good but only when you infill most of the Arctic as piping hot, give it a 10 year smooth, and start from the deepest low temp of the Maunder minimum, adjusted ever cooler as present circumstances dictate.
Post a Comment