Skeptics attacked, once again, without specifics

Remember Anna-Maria Arabia? The one calling for deniers to stop casting a stain on science. Once again, she continues to advocate the position that any doubt over global warming is part of an anti-science campaign. At least she puts Greenpeace in their place.

“On the right, Christopher Monckton continues to misquote, misrepresent and misuse science in his anti climate science parade across Australia. And climate scientists have had to endure death threats for getting on with the job and furnishing the public with much needed information.”

Notice how she doesn’t provide any specifics of any misquoting, misrepresentation or misuse of science. I doubt if she has even heard anything he has said. Notice also, that she is still under the impression that death threats to climate scientists are actually death threats. By information, does she mean telling us of the lack of warming for the past decade, correcting the public misperceptions of the Vostok ice cores or just more outrageous alarmism?

She goes around labelling skeptics as “denialists” seemingly completely unware that she is having a go at scientists whom she intends to defend. I wonder if she thinks Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen and Ian Plimer are also part of this anti-science agenda.

“At the same time climate denialists claim that government funded research has an inherent bias. Should we similarly ban all research funded by the public sector?”

She misses the point, any money poured into one side of a theory will produce bias and huge amounts of funding, conditional on one outcome will manufacture a consensus.

“In an ideal world…the planet wouldn’t be warming…”

What makes pre-industrial temperatures optimal? Why is any warming considered bad?

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.

2 Responses to Skeptics attacked, once again, without specifics

  1. If you want specifics, all you have to do is look at the following pages. Why should everyone trot out a list of specifics every time they mention Monckton’s name?

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton_Myths.htm
    http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

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