Friday, September 09, 2016

Two Sides of Climate Debate Presented

I have to give the Washington Times credit. This might well be the first time I've seen a major nrewspaper give two sides to the debate over global warming, although I do think the title portrays "skeptics" as ignorant buffoons and not scientists as they are.

No definitive conclusion to the article aside from pointing out disagreements between a group of scientists on one side and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on the other:

" So did University of Colorado Boulder senior climate scientist Roger Pielke Sr. — for a very different reason.

Pielke said the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration should be “embarrassed” by its rush to release the research before conducting a peer review, accusing the agency of “bias” and calling the study a “dismaying example of manipulation of science for political reasons.”

I know such information will have little impact on Believers.

5 Comments:

At 2:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Although the fact that it was released without peer review is a concern because skeptics will latch onto it, this is an open source peer review process. It was the media that latched onto the results. Remember, the researchers said there was a 40% chance climate change had something to do with it. That means there is a 60% chance it did not. The fact is our oceans are getting warmer and warmer oceans result in warmer air which holds more moisture. When that warm, moist air encounters cold air, rain falls.

 
At 2:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You do realize the Washingont Times is wholly owned by The Unification church of Sun Yung Moon, don't you? Just saying...

 
At 2:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh yeah, Washington Times. Dick Cheney's favorite news media mine and to salt his bogus "yellow cake from Niger" BS story in and then refer to that very story in the Times, on MTP with Timmy Russert, as confirmation of his BS claim. Played ol' Timmy like a sock puppet
But, they do have some pretty good articles on what the best gun buys are, especially, for conceal carry.

The idea that hundreds of thousands of tons of carbon can be pumped into the atmosphere with no ill effect at all is absurd in itself, if you have an actual working brain.
And all those pesticides in and on your food? No problem either. All good. You can trust Dow Chemical and the Koch twins. They're on our side. So's Putin, I hear.
That reminds me; I need to make my list out for Santy Claus if I want any presents this Christmas.

 
At 3:37 PM, Blogger Rick Wentworth said...

scientists say the last ice age was caused by climate change and i believe that . it was how long ago , 10,000 or more years and about the time humans discovered how to make fire . are they gonna blame the last ice age on humans making big fires back then .
scientists also agree climate change has happened thru out history and at fairly regular intervals . 10,000 - 15,000 years apart .
i say its about time anyway

 
At 10:08 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

We've seen studies published that were generated, now we are seeing randomly generated peer reviews published. It never ends. Wherever there is an agenda, there's a generated backup.
http://retractionwatch.com/2016/09/02/weve-seen-computer-generated-fake-papers-get-published-now-we-have-computer-generated-fake-peer-reviews/

 

Post a Comment

<< Home