The Hobart Mercury’s Peter Boyer attacks skeptics.
In the past couple of weeks, some have claimed that the deliberate campaign to discredit the scientific evidence for human-induced climate change amounts to a crime against humanity, whose perpetrators should be punished accordingly.
In light of the damage done, this position seems perfectly reasonable.
He does oppose this action however, but not because of the obvious assault on free speech.
Criminal action is a satisfying idea, but it’ll never work. It would only strengthen the conviction of doubters and potentially make them into martyrs.
- claimed that Muller was a skeptic
- ignored the debate surrounding BEST, including the disagreement with co-author Judith Curry
- dismissed climategate as “now discredited” (he doesn’t say why, but I suspect he blindly accepted the results of the rather superficial inquiries)
- said skeptics responded to BEST with “muted resentment (and) undisguised fury”, whereas he was laughed off for claiming the ground for skepticism had ended despite admitting they didn’t consider causation