Scientist “appalled” at debate

Australian Climate Madness picked up on a quote from Will Steffan, their “quote of the day”.

“What debate? There is no debate in the scientific community about this.”

However, I think the rest of the SMH article is more disturbing.

This climate scientist is appalled at the level of debate in Australia.  Bemused, frustrated and appalled. All of these adjectives describe Will Steffen’s attitude to the debate on climate change in Australia.

A scientist is appalled at debate?! How can any self-respecting scientist endorse such a remark? It is anti-scientific and if Steffan does not publicly refute this statement by the writer of this article, he is not worthy to be associated with science, let alone be called a professor.

”Well over 90 per cent of scientists in the area are quite clear: the Earth is warming and human activity is the major cause.” The blame for this ”phoney debate”, he believes, lies squarely with the media. ”A very small, very vocal minority is given the same weight,” he says.

This inexcusable argument by authority further damages Steffan’s scientific credibility. The first thing that is wrong with this remark is that (even if you regard this arbitrary figure to be accurate) there are ten per cent who disagree. Therefore there must be debate.

Galileo once said that “in matters of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual”. Now why should we not consider a “consensus” of scientists to be trustworthy? It assumes that they are infallible, because they are scientists, they cannot be wrong and they cannot be corrupted. Human beings are susceptible to both of these.

Steffan then blames the media. If he wants to get the skeptics off his back, all he has to do is provide some empirical evidence for his claims. This is basic science. He refuses to do this and has the gall to declare debate illegitimate. Just because he refuses to debate, or that he chooses to ignore it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

 ”(Monckton) is not taken seriously in the UK, yet he gets 10 times the media coverage of James Hansen, one of the most eminent climate scientists in the world [and who visited Australia last year].”

Perhaps Steffan could publically repudiate Monckton’s specific claims with scientific evidence to back this. Monckton gets more coverage than Hansen not because the media respects him, but because it wants to discredit him.

The article then refers to a single death threat Steffan received. So now fairfax implicitly acknowledges that their hysteria over these death threats were exaggerated?

Advertisements

About Climate Nonconformist

Hi, I'm the climatenonconformist (not my real name), and I am a global warming skeptic, among the few in generation Y. With Australia facing the prospect of a carbon tax, we need to be asking the simple question; where is the evidence that our emissions are causing any dangerous warming?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Scientist “appalled” at debate

  1. Martin Clark says:

    Hi, climatenonconformist,
    Extraordinary attitudes from Will Steffan. Tim Flannery I knew about. 500 serious errors in “The Weather Makers” etc. I don’t mind the numerous references to Gaia so much. Sometimes make them myself. Thing is, Gaia has given them all a kick in the a**se over the past decade and they don’t seem to have noticed.
    I’m a town planner and building designer, 40 years experience. This includes experience in modelling and climate-responsive design. I can see the gaping holes in the creed these people promote. Had a look at Will Steffan’s profile. How on earth can he fail to see what is obvious to me ? I know – “follow the money” etc…

  2. Harpo says:

    Steffan is a disgrace. He has never taken Flannery to task for the Age editorial in 2009. In that editorial Flannery demonstrated that he knows nothing about the physics of gases. He sais that there has been a 25% increase in the average temperature of the planet because temperatures had rise from 15 degrees to 25 degrees since industrialisation. We’ll forget the fact they only increase by about 0.7 of a degree and that 5/15 = 33% but they most amazing thing is that Flannery did not do the calculation in Kelvin. In which case the answer true answer is 0.25% Steffan studied chemical engineering so he must know that Flannery was wrong. This is Year 11 physics. But nothing is said. They just keep telling lies… Steffan is an enemy of science.

  3. Pingback: CSIRO Fail | Climate Nonconformist

  4. Pingback: Warmist scientists feed propaganda | Climate Nonconformist

Leave a Reply

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s