a BBC presenter. He interviewed Caroline Lucas, Green Party leader, on the day
of the tedious Climate March in London. And trotted out a ludicrous 'is climate
change even happening' set of questions, which I thought the BBC had realised was
intellectually dishonest and bankrupt years ago.
And finally, somehow, someone has left a comment on that blog!
I include it here, without cutting any a single foam-flecked word from it,
and with my responses interspersed.
There is a basic (eponymous) rule of blogging/the tinterwebs that I am
breaking here, and I may ruefully rue it, but I think there is a Principle
At Stake Here.
tallbloke has left a new comment on your post "MEN,Yes, but that doesn't mean there aren't things we are sure of. I take
eh useless or what?":
Peter Sissons was quite right to question Caroline Lucas on
the validity of man made global warming theory. Science is
an ongoing process,
it you are pretty sure about gravity. Or that eating a cake full of
cyanide is a bad idea.
Or that there is a causal link between asbestos/cigarette smoking
and dying of lung diseases. "Science is an on-going process" can be
simply a code for "there are things I wish weren't true."
digression
Oh, and science can be kind of post-normal. And these problems
can be wicked, if you kuhn believe it.
end digressionGeen or green? If it's deliberate, I'm really embarrassed for you. It's
and the standard geen party line of 'the debate is over'
doesn't change that.
childish and demeaning (to you) and, crucially, not even funny. Jokes
are supposed to be funny. If accidental, it's at best careless: ironic
for someone who is claiming to overturn established consensus.
Surely self-appointed "mavericks" have to be more careful?
More crucially, you are framing this (deliberately or accidentally?) as
a debate between the BBC and the Green Party. You are at risk of
claiming Climate Change 'theory' is a creation of the Green Party.
You are ignoring the IPCC, the WMO, Woods Hole, Scripps, NASA's
Goddard Centre. And, oddly, the Financial Times, which is by far the
best newspaper on Climate Change. Do you think the Green Party is
in a secret conspiracy with the FT? And the insurance industry too?
Or do you have some other overarching explanation?New evidence of other climate drivers and the uncovering
of the falsification of data by Hansen, Jones and Mann
means the question is still wide open.
Well, if *I* were making such a sweeping claim, I would feel obliged
to provide some actual references, and links to peer-reviewed science.
You have obviously not felt under such an obligation. Interesting.
More likely you are waiting for me to ask for some, and then send a
long list of previously discredited articles by Viscount Monckton and
the like. And your "new evidence" will be the same old spurious
sunspot stupidity.
You can choose not to publish this comment, which would
of course be a perfect demonstartion of the way the contrary
opinion is stifled by those afraid of scientific truth and
open debate.
Ah yes, the deep-seated need of climate denialists to be
martyrs heroically bearing the slings and arrows and slights of a
sinister Green Conspiracy.
Oh, and "demonstartion". You have chosen not to spell-check
your email. Why should we take you seriously, if you are unwilling
to display basic courtesy?
Oh, and let me share a secret with you. Most people working
hard on climate change have been through years of this sort of
thing. And at least some (I've not asked everyone) went through
the same process as me- of actually getting excited and hopeful
when someone said climate change wasn't happening, things were
going to get better. And then we read the so-called evidence and
reports, and realise that no, the horrifically gloomy stuff we had
previously gotten used to was more likely, was happening faster
than was even predicted. Have a read of Elizabeth Kolbert's Field
Notes from a Catastrophe, or Fred Pearce's The Last Generation.
You seem to think the Green Party is talking up climate change.
Why would a political party wanting votes do that?
You seem to think that climate activists are unreflectively hooked
on gloom. Well, I and my colleagues aren't. We think hard, and
search hard for information.
You (deliberately?) misunderstand what MCFly is about. We are
not here to debate the science. We are here to inform the people
of Manchester about what the council, businesses and locals are
doing about climate change.
If you want to learn more/flame about the science, there are plenty
of places you can do that. RealClimate.org is an obvious place
to begin.
I suggest, if you are so sure of your facts and so eager that
your contrary opinion is not "stifled", that you spend the sort of
time we do at MCFly on setting up your own website, and inviting
other people (us, for example) to comment on it. We don't have
the time or the inclination to get involved in trolling and spamming
with people who don't even give references for their unwarranted
smears on people like Hansen and Mann, who anyway are only a few
among a much much broader consensus on the science
(Oreskes reference).
As you so astutely and incisively pointed out at the beginning of
your comment, “science is an ongoing process.”
Now, most people would say there is overwhelming empirical evidence
to support the hypothesis that you are trolling. Still, science being
what it is, I have to allow for Black Swans. I'm going to try to (get
you to) falsify my hypothesis that you are a troll.
If you can come up with a short (no more than 300 words), legible,
spell-chekced and properly referenced [peer-reviewed, not funded
by oil and coal companies. That excludes Pat Michaels, for example]
reply to the above points, then sure we will post it. We will publish
a blog post that links to whatever website YOU set up to display your
wide and deep understanding of climate science.
If you can't, this conversation is closed. We don't have time
for trolls.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment