Hey Media – Skeptics are Scientists Too « the Air Vent

When we read media articles about skeptics, they typically paint us as though we are non-technical, uninformed and motivated by our politics over our minds.  “Skeptics need to get real, and do something about climate”, they say.  This is despite the in-your-face reality that the IPCC represents exactly those political qualities.   The truth is that most of us are technical people from other fields who like to discuss the details of the data and many have realized that there just isn’t much to be alarmed about!  Climate Science has failed to alarm us.  We are chemists, engineers, programmers, physicists, astronomers, medical professionals, meteorologists, statisticians and even climate scientists.   We are not the ones who are uninformed in the debate, we are the ones who are qualified to read the science and where appropriate – disagree.  Since we are unfunded by the government for climate and often better statisticians, I would even say we are more qualified to judge the science than those embroiled in the highly funded political morass of “getting the world to do something”.  See Real Climate blog for a perfect example of the politics behind climate science.

We read articles from advocate media every day.   They are very consistent, and very wrong about people like Anthony Watts.   Not much exposes the bias of Climate Science than the media-wide unabashed smear campaign against him for doing the right thing with data.

William M. Briggs, Statistician » Heartland Documents Leaked, Massaged, Faked

That is, scientists who are paid by the government via grants are seen as conflict-free, while those who are paid by private citizens are seen as inherently conflicted. Why is this? After all, if government-backed scientists do not toe the line—if they do not tell the granting agencies what they want to hear—they will soon join the bread line with people like me whose pro bono work has brought them to the point of no bono. Might not this fear of financial ruin influence the scientists’ results? If you say no, why?

Much of the stink over these documents are from people like Huffington Post’s Shawn Lawrence Otto whose major point of emphasis is that Heartland is biased towards their own point of view. Well, this is true. This is not of course proof that this point of view is false, though. It is no different than saying that Greenpeace screeds (i.e. press releases) are biased towards their point of view. And yet we never hear arguments like this.

Half Of U.S. [offshore?] Wind Turbines Likely To Be Destroyed By Hurricanes, Experts Warn

U.S. energy officials have set a bullish target for wind farms to generate one fifth of the country’s electricity by 2030 - but Mother Nature certainly isn’t going to make it easy. Academic experts at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, say half of the turbines at four proposed offshore wind farms are likely to be destroyed by hurricanes in their 20-year life.

Surprise, Surprise: Europe's Emissions Trading System Isn't Working

Emissions trading, the European Union hoped, would limit the release of harmful greenhouse gases. But it isn't working. The price for emissions certificates has plunged, a development that is actually making coal more attractive than renewable energy.