The business lobby, hoping to fend off potentially sweeping emission limits, wants the US EPA to hold a ‘Scopes’-like hearing on the evidence that climate change is man-made. Read more here.
Footer
About Me
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Read morePayPal
Let the science be tested and we’ll see how ‘settled’ it is.
Do they really want a ‘scopes’ hearing? It means that they will lose.
SJT,
You should study American history a bit more.
The rationalists lost the trial but massively won the war.
AGW promoters should be very afraid. The light of day, and full and open disclosure is the last thing AGW has sought after.
‘The science is settled’. ‘Jail the deniers’. ‘AGW is happening _X_ times faster than predicted’
‘We are reaching a tipping point’.
Those pesky fact free assertions and ridiculous cliams will not fair well under critical scutiny at all.
“AGW promoters should be very afraid. The light of day, and full and open disclosure is the last thing AGW has sought after.”
Rubbish, the development of AGW has taken over a century in the public arena. McIntyre does a very good line in snide abuse of people and taking offense when they tell him what he can do with himself, that doesn’t constitute a scientific argument. Those who developed the scientific method realised years ago that personal pettiness and sniping debased science, and did away with it.
“Those who developed the scientific method realised years ago that personal pettiness and sniping debased science, and did away with it.”
In that case they shouldn’t have any problem with the USCC’s request:
“To be specific, in order to ensure that regulations which re-engineer our economy are needed and would ultimately be effective, we are pushing the EPA to reveal the data they used to justify their endangerment proposal,” he wrote. ” We need to drop the articles of faith and use the entirety of scientific study on the effects of climate change, not a sub-set, chosen by the EPA not for its validity but rather for its ability to forward its policy goal – the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.”
SJT,
You are defending a bunch of clowns using secret data, secret algorithms, self-referential peer review, and who make threats against people who disagree with them. But you have the unmitigated gall to call out the skeptics who stand up to them?
You are a true midget amoung pygmies.
“But you have the unmitigated gall to call out the skeptics who stand up to them?
You are a true midget amoung pygmies.”
For McIntyre, it’s the journey, not the destination. He made the same uproar over Hansens code for the GISS adjustments. The code was handed over, nothing was wrong with it.
Science has worked not on victimising individuals, but using it’s own quality system. If you think someone is wrong, you do your own research, and prove yourself right. It’s a system that has worked remarkably well, to date. There is not a day goes by at his blog that they don’t pillory some scientist. Anathema for McIntyre, too much hard work, and no fun for the punters baying at Goldstien. He also is curiously silent on most of the nonsense from the deniers. There is no ‘audit’ of Beck, for example.
SJT,
The role of the skeptic is to point out problems.
As has been documented about AGW, conflicted peer review, self-promtion. dubious and flat out fraudulent techniques, ahve all been documented. By your favorite McIntyre and many others.
As to personal attacks, go to RC and any other of the AGW oprmotion blogs. They are far and away more into use of attacks and they add deception to their mix, as well.
Go ahead and defend the indefnsible. That is one of the cornerstones of AGW belief.
SJT
From your comments about Climate Audit, I think it’s pretty obvious you don’t read it at all – Steve McINtyre has a policy of no ad homs etc, but you, you are the consummate hypocrit – slandering McIntyre here with your unfounded slurs.
How come McIntyre’s been dragged into this topic? Wouldn’t be an attempt to deflect the thread would it?