Comment by Chris K

[Claudius Denk]

http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=2019

Perhaps I’m missing the point here. As a confirmed and devout man-made
GW sceptic I think the hacker managed to very nicely expose the fact
that “science” as defined by the media should not be seen as providing
conveniently straightforward answers to questions on world climate.
Science in many areas is continually evolving. Physics for example has
moved on significantly from where it was when I studied it at
university. By providing the public with an insight into this fact;
that scientists are only human and easily capable of making mistakes,
taking risky judgement calls and bad-mouthing ideas they oppose. This
fallability may seem a patently obvious fact to anyone with half a
brain, however the fanatical fervour with which some people have
jumped on the man-made climate change bandwagon suggests that many
people are happy to take a scientist’s word on faith alone, with no
pause to consider things like accuracy or possible political or
financial agendas.
The IPCC have been quoted in the media repeatedly stating that the
consensus of views on GW was overwhelming, with the subtext being that
this was yet more evidence of the accuracy of their views. This is a
logical fallacy of the most basic kind, and is not the sort of
sentiment I expect any science-based quango to want to associate
itself with. It is clear that “good science” is not, and never has
been at the heart of this subject. This hack has at the very least
exposed the fact that sceptic’s questions still remain relevant….as is
right and proper for any scientific exploration

I may yet be proven wrong, and a link between CO2 and global average
temperature may exist, but I doubt it, and even the most media savvy
pseudo science committee’s comments on the subject will not move me
without providing hard evidence which relies on something more
reliable than ice-gas readings and tree ring studies. In the meantime,
hopefully exposing the “niceties” of scientific debate like this may
convince a few of the hardliners that their absolute faith in the
current model is mis-placed, and may yet prove to be a costly mistake.

Comment by Chris K — 23 November 2009 @ 9:44 AM

[erschro...@gmail.com]

And the response:
See

http://bartonpaullevenson.com/Correlation.html

[Ouroboros Rex]

Claudius Denk wrote:
> http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=2019
>
> Perhaps I�m missing the point here. As a confirmed and devout man-made
> GW sceptic I think the hacker managed to very nicely expose the fact
> that �science� as defined by the media should not be seen as providing
> conveniently straightforward answers to questions on world climate.
> Science in many areas is continually evolving. Physics for example has
> moved on significantly from where it was when I studied it at
> university. By providing the public with an insight into this fact;
> that scientists are only human and easily capable of making mistakes,
> taking risky judgement calls and bad-mouthing ideas they oppose. This
> fallability may seem a patently obvious fact to anyone with half a
> brain, however the fanatical fervour with which some people have
> jumped on the man-made climate change bandwagon suggests that many
> people are happy to take a scientist�s word on faith alone, with no
> pause to consider things like accuracy or possible political or
> financial agendas.

The usual denialist trash. lol