I thought he said he agreed with you?

Science never stops researching, it never thinks that it has all the answers. If they are doing research because it’s their job and they enjoy doing it, including going to conferences, there’s not much I can say.

One the one hand the science of settled and we have a global consensus, but on the other we are uncertain about many things so give us more money— and in the meantime you must scrww up your economies because what we say is the truth and incontrovertible, and if you dont we are all dooomed –but gives us your money anyway.

The logic is impecable–

As for your stupid analogy with gravity –we are not being asked to give up our way of life so that the gravity researchers can have open ended access to funds.Get a grip.

Quite apart from that, scientists in general just do research anyway. Gravity is “settled” as being a force that makes apples fall off trees, exactly how that force works is still a hot topic of research.

Not to do so just makes it hypocritical.

Whats more deplorable is the number of pseudo- scientits who need to blog under pseudonyms.

Jennifer is quite entitled to ask why there is ongoing research in an area of science if it is ’settled’. The snide implication that the only reason for the research is to fly scientists to exoctic locations is deplorable.

“He seems to prefer writing sensationalist stories.

A cheap science writer is what I see in him.

He is still wrong about This book:

Climates of Hunger: Mankind and the World’s Changing Weather” by Reid A. Bryson and Thomas J. Murray

I have that book and for 1975 not a bad book since there were so little climatic data to use then.

I have long stopped considering anything from Gribbin as being a reliable source of writing.

He is a junk science writer.”

Thus it is interesting that the last sentence of that review in Nature was:-

“The importance of his ideas certainly justifies the devotion of a major text to their display in the academic market place.”

I am also sending a copy of the review to Jennifer Marohasy.

Isn’t that type of comment beneath you, Jennifer?”

SJT -

I would have thought rather than being beneath her, it is a very sharp and pertinent retort.

For ages we have have been told by the IPCC heavies and endless other AGW proponents that the science is settled, and that there is a consensus on this.

It is the the very claim that has duped the policy makers to start the public opinion campaigns, and spend mega bucks of public funds, as well as helping to differentiate political parties at election times.

If the science is settled, and it is indeed a consensus,as they have most certainly proclaimed, then why on earth is there a need to do anything more.

We should be using the science budgets to solve more important problems, of which there no shortage of candidates, not even related to AGW.

Posted by: Eyrie at April 18, 2008 07:00 PM”

He seems to prefer writing sensationalist stories.

A cheap science writer is what I see in him.

He is still wrong about This book:

Climates of Hunger: Mankind and the World’s Changing Weather” by Reid A. Bryson and Thomas J. Murray

I have that book and for 1975 not a bad book since there were so little climatic data to use then.

I have long stopped considering anything from Gribbin as being a reliable source of writing.

He is a junk science writer.

But Dr.Gribbin who wrote that book and another similar book later while holding a doctorate in Astronomy.Allegedy educated enough to know that what he was writing about was not even remotely possible.

Such line ups have happened a number of times over the thousands of years.The critics of his books spotted so many astronomical errors in them that it was amazing that a doctorate in astronomy wrote it.

They were STUPID books.