you're reading...
A view from the trenches, Climate Science, General Topics, Hypocrisy, MSM, Settled science?, UK Weather

Dispatches – 15 May 2013

It was time, once again, to gather my thoughts and put them out there for comment. As I was stringing some ideas together, I clicked, purely by chance, one of my blogroll links and what I saw on there caused me to change tack.

The link is here (the comments are definitely worth a read) and I’ve pasted the video further on. BH states; I hadn’t seen this video before, but I’m surprised I missed it – it’s great fun – a completely absurd ballet featuring Roy Spencer and Gavin Schmidt.

This is a classic case highlighting the inability of climate scientists to defend their creed against even a lukewarm ‘denier’; it’s hard to classify Dr. Spencer as a hard-core climate denier by any stretch of the imagination.

The subject of the alarmists’ fear of debate crops up on a regular basis and one has to ask the question; Why?

  • Why, when the science is settled, won’t they sit across a table and meet someone from an opposing point of view?
  • Why, despite the $billions spent on ‘research’ can they not simply put their case and thereby squash all dissent?
  • Why, when asked to back up the hyperbole with facts, do they turn tail and decry the opposition?

The key question, I think, is the one about the ‘settled science’. As I have shown in my posts on the history of carbon-dioxide research (here and here) the foundation of this hypothesis is very weak.

We know it, they know it and, most of all, I suspect, they know that we know that they know it. Why else would they, almost without exception, turn tail and run at the first suggestion of an open debate. It doesn’t happen in economics, medicine or politics; if it does, it’s a rarity.

It is open knowledge now, that the BBC, for example, excludes contrarian views on climate, wherever possible, and it’s still a bone of contention that the UK’s premier news outlet continually breaches the terms of its Royal Charter. Why are these people SO scared of an open debate?

In case you think I’m suffering from an excess of conspiracy-theory yoghurt over this, let me point you in the direction of some information that you may not be aware of;

I could go on, but I think you get the point. The hypocrisy of it all can be summed up by reading this piece by Sir Paul Nurse, on science journalism, written for budding reporters looking to join the BBC. After you read that then follow it up with this James Delingpole article relating to a BBC Horizon documentary programme where Nurse’s knowledge of climate science was shown to be more than a little lacking. Sir Paul Nurse’s big boo boo

Apart from the need to avoid open discussion about the science, the doubts over the alarmists’ rhetoric become reinforced when you look at the amount of manipulation of data that occurs. NASA’s GISS is one of the prime suspects in this; but they aren’t alone. To save time I’ll link to some composite lists that you can study at your leisure.

Another sinister process is going on, which looks to make transparency just another hypothetical concept which politicians love to talk about but fight tooth-and-nail to evade.

  • The advance of secret science – The Intellectual Property Bill has now been published, and this includes the amendment to the FOI Act relating to scientific research that came out of the post-legislative review that was discussed at BH last year.

Thinking back to the FOI fight that the BBC put up (at huge expense to licence-fee payers) to hide the 28-Gate disclosure, you do wonder what it is they don’t want us to know?

Getting back to my earlier question, maybe this is the reason the ‘consensus’ scientists don’t like facing the opposition? When you’ve watched this ask yourself: Do I think this a reasonable way for a scientist, such as Gavin Schmidt, to conduct himself, if he is absolutely sure of his facts?




5 thoughts on “Dispatches – 15 May 2013

  1. A very thought provoking story by Stossel.

    Posted by HankH | May 16, 2013, 2:04 am
    • I had a chuckle when a warmist troll, on another blog, reckoned it was ‘game, set and match’ to Schmidt. These people are beyond parody now.

      Posted by grumpydenier | May 16, 2013, 9:09 am
      • Yes, Schmidt was in prime form. I loved his response – no I won’t debate because it makes for good television.

        LOL, it would make for good television. It would make television history. He won’t debate because they’ve been skinned alive in too many of their formal university debates. No reason to get skinned again in front of millions.

        Posted by HankH | May 17, 2013, 3:24 am
  2. The question why alarmist climate scientists are so reluctant to debate if they are so very sure about their findings is something I wondered myself many times before. My take on this is that what they want to bring is more political in nature than scientific.

    In the end I think they want to avoid debacles like this:
    (transcript of a alarmist vs skeptics debate in pdf format).
    I have also seen other debates gone horribly wrong.

    My guess is this is one of the reason why they are so eager to declare “consensus”: then they don’t have to debate anymore.

    Posted by trustyetverify | May 24, 2013, 8:10 am


  1. Pingback: Dispatches – 4 June 2013 | grumpydenier - June 4, 2013

Add your thoughts. . .

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Follow me on Twitter

Flag Counter
%d bloggers like this: