Jones and CRU exonerated

Poptech said:
Of course because everything on it is intellectually honest and sourced.
Click to expand...

Then why don't you post that material here? Everything you post here is from denialist think tanks and known liars like Inhofe and Mockton.
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
The exact quote was "I'm following my political agenda -- a bit, anyway."
Click to expand...
Full context,

Correcting misinformation about the journal Energy & Environment

"My political agenda is simple and open; it concerns the role of research ambitions in the making of policy.

I concluded from a research project about the IPCC - funded by the UK government during the mid 1990s - that this body was set up to support, initially, climate change research projects supported by the WMO and hence the rapidly evolving art and science of climate modeling. A little later the IPCC came to serve an intergovernmental treaty, the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. This enshrines in law that future climate change would be warming caused by greenhouse gases (this remains debated), is man-made (to what an extend remains debated) as well as dangerous (remains debated). It became a task of the IPCC government selected and government funded, to support the theory that this man-made warming would be dangerous rather than beneficial, as some argue.

The solutions to this assumed problem were worked out by IPCC working group three, which worked largely independently of the science working group one and consisted primarily of parties interested in a 'green' energy agenda, including people from environment agencies, NGOs and environmental economics. This group supplied the science group with emission scenarios that have been widely criticized and which certainly enhanced the 'danger'. From interviews and my own reading I concluded that the climate science debate WAS BY NO MEANS OVER AND SHOULD CONTINUE. However, when I noticed that scientific critics of the IPCC science working group were increasingly side-lined and had difficulties being published - when offered the editorship of E&E, I decided to continue publishing 'climate skeptics' and document the politics associated with the science debate. The implications for energy policy and technology are obvious.

I myself have argued the cause of climate 'realism' - I am a geomorphologist by academic training before switching to environmental international relations - but do so on more the basis of political rather than science-based arguments. As far as the science of climate change is concerned, I would describe myself as agnostic.

In my opinion the global climate research enterprise must be considered as an independent political actor in environmental politics. I have widely published on this subject myself, and my own research conclusions have influenced my editorial policy. I also rely on an excellent and most helpful editorial board which includes a number of experienced scientists. Several of the most respected 'climate skeptics' regularly peer-review IPCC critical papers I publish."

- Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Editor, Energy & Environment
Click to expand...
 
Poptech said:
uke2se you post lie after lie because you cannot handle the truth.
Click to expand...

There you go projecting again. Perhaps you should calm down. I know it must be tough to be so soundly defeated time and time again, but you shouldn't fret. One day you're bound to be able to win a single argument.
 
uke2se said:
There you go projecting again. Perhaps you should calm down. I know it must be tough to be so soundly defeated time and time again, but you shouldn't fret. One day you're bound to be able to win a single argument.
Click to expand...

Even a broken clock is correct twice a day ;)

ETA: I can't wait to see what PopTech says when (prediction time) the third independent investigation clears Jones and the CRU of climate science fraud. Hmmm, one wonders...
 
Last edited:
uke2se said:
There you go projecting again. Perhaps you should calm down. I know it must be tough to be so soundly defeated time and time again, but you shouldn't fret. One day you're bound to be able to win a single argument.
Click to expand...
First I have to be defeated. You have yet to make a single argument.
 
Last edited:
MattusMaximus said:
ETA: I can't wait to see what PopTech says when (prediction time) the third independent investigation clears Jones and the CRU of climate science fraud. Hmmm, one wonders...
Click to expand...
Public opinion polls still in the tank? Cap and Trade DOA? Try harder!
 
Poptech said:
Public opinion polls still in the tank? Cap and Trade DOA? Try harder!
Click to expand...

Quoting this for future reference whenever I need to point out that Poptech doesn't care about science, but rather the sabotage there of.
 
Poptech said:
Public opinion polls still in the tank? Cap and Trade DOA? Try harder!
Click to expand...

If you define "in the tank" as roughly 57% of people accepting the climate science consensus, sure. I know that's down quite a bit from the high somewhere in the 70s, but it still isn't awful (at least those are the numbers the last time I looked). Look at similar U.S. polls in the middle of (northern hemisphere) summer and I'm certain we'll see an uptick.

Btw, what does public opinion have to do with the validity of science? Do you honestly think that "majority rules" among the general populace should define sound science?

If so, a lot of planes are going to start crashing...
 
Last edited:
Poptech said:
Lies.
Click to expand...

It would seem that Poptech doesn't even bother trying to disguise his lies as arguments anymore. He simply exclaims "lies" instead.

It's definately a step towards energy-efficiency, I'll give you that Poptech.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom