Now comes Mark Steyn with this group of words, "Climategate/ Climaquiddick scandal". The comment is quickly absorbed and that forbidden topic is now out in the open.
The article itself talks to the question of the value of peer reviews, especially in light of indications from the CRU EMails that the "climate change" folks were doing all they could to suppress opposition—junk science, I am sure they would say.
Of course, the question is, who is my "peer" and do I accept this person or not?
Or, as Mark Steyn says in his column
“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” wondered Juvenal: Who watches the watchmen?In this case we could be talking about people stealing billions of dollars and continuing the impoverishment of hundreds of millions of people. Or saving hundreds of millions of lives.
Regards — Cliff
PS: The other fun word out of the article is "ecopalypse".
3 comments:
We are a society of sensationalists, adrenalin junkies who cannot let a day or even an hour pass without some new earthshaking, earthending crisis purported to end or alter life as we know it forever more....unless we immediately change our ways. Sort of reminds me of the ragged guy with a beard standing on the sidewalk with a sign that says, "The end is near. Repent."
Like the pre-reformation Catholic church, Algore has enriched himself grandly by urging folks to repent, as have countless other priests of ecopalypse.
I believe however that we will not hear much about the whole issue in the next two years as the press and the sheeple will be pathologically focused on what is going to befall us all in the year 2012. You can bet your Mayan calendar on that one.
Regards,
Neal
PS. In the spirit of creating a new panic in the streets...at least of MA.....I'm promoting a scientifically based report that concludes that in 2010, The Peoples Republic of Massachussetts will go nearly completely Republican and Sarah will be elected Governor.
It is hard to believe that in this day an age, that is the age where all the glaciers are shrinking save two, that there are people that aren't concerned about global warming, except for senators from coaling mining states.
I think that there are people who are interested in glaciers shrinking (and in why two are not shrinking). And, I believe there are people who would like to understand what is happening with the climate. I also believe that there is a subset of that group, which thinks that the chaps from the CRU have acted in a manner that can NOT be described as scientific, in the sense of building a hypothesis and then examining the data in a free and open way and letting their fellow scientists see if they can match the results.
The CRU has become about faith and not about science.
And, perhaps because I am not looking in the right places, I don't see any papers that talk about the trade-offs. Given that there is no perfect world or perfect climate, but just the evolution of the system, why are we trying to hold things in stasis? Is adapting to the change in the climate a better solution?
What I think is that the US needs to cut down on the use of oil for fuel—way down. (This is for economic and self-defense reasons.) I think the world needs to be working to find ways to help the more impoverished nations get ahead. I don't think India, China or Brazil are going to be interested in cutting back their industrial growth just at the time it is helping them move from the third world to the second and maybe even the first.
The upshot is that we need a real debate, with real data. Don't tell me about the penguins, as does Mr Edgard Telles Ribeiro in the NYT "Week in Review". Tell me about the kids who are dying of malnutrition, and what we are going to do about them.
Regards — Cliff
Post a Comment