Could the ABC be favouring the skeptics?

The warmist blogosphere is currently lamenting the editing process of the ABC in regards to their recent climate program. John Cook at Skeptical Science has some of this missing footage, in which Naomi Oreskes apparently “deconstructs Nick Minchin’s climate denial”.

I was expecting some smoking gun example of scientific evidence or at least a refutation of some specific points raised by Minchin. Instead, she does what she is known for, smearing skeptics by questioning their motivations. The only point she mentions the science is the “overwhelming…indisputable” evidence of which she does not elaborate. She even suggests that to question it is equivalent to questioning the role of plate tectonic in earthquakes. No hard scientific arguments.

With some exceptions, the commenters at SkS can’t seem to understand the futility of this point, so I’ll lay it out. Both sides can question the political and financial motivations of the other side all day. Where the debate needs to focus on is the science and the data. An attempt at a psychoanalysis does not count as “deconstructing” the opposing position and it is these kind of tactics from the warming crowd that make people skeptical in the first place.

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. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Could the ABC be favouring the skeptics?

  1. brian lemon says:

    I came to this argument in 1995 and started what became a quite successful blog. And I really didn’t know much then, but… I judged first the messengers. Al Gore is a congenital exaggerator – everything he has ever said needs to be discounted probably by 80%. The the UN… The United Nations has a track record of always supporting anti-western causes – one can be assured that any policy from the organization is designed to take money from the west and give it to the non-west. Then there were the celebrities – the Grade 10 and 11 graduates – the Geres, Redfords, di Caprios, et al who are stupid and uneducated and always adopt stupid causes. Then the leftist politicians who are a rough amalgam of environmentalists, Marxists, animal-rightists, unionists, anarchists, etc. and ANYTHING they support is bound to be bad for society. And then, the scientists whose careers, incomes, fame and notoriety depended on their theories being true (not to mention their getting dates).
    Then I started looking at the questions and the data and the way it was gathered and who was interpretting it. I followed the money, saw the “tricks” being used – change data, switch between means of temp measurement to best fit the model and saw corruption.
    I then looked at the weather; it simply wasn’t cooperating with the sky is falling theory. It wasn’t a lot hotter, colder, wetter or drier, anywhere in the world for a sustained period of time. Almost no records for anything were being broken, I understood that the spread of media reporting would result in more reporting of more weather events. I was even one of the first to rebut the insurance claims stats that were being used (they weren’t taking into account appreciation of values of properties and the huge growth of property in iffy climate zones.
    And I came up with the only realistic appraisal of the debate. The world’s climate is not changing that much, that there is no evidence that humans are having any influence on it, and that even if the climate changes by a substantial amount we will be able to deal with it. We’re not going to stand on the beach and watch the water rise to our toes, then our ankles, then knees, waist, chest and over our heads and then drown.
    It is all… without question – a scam.

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