I am away from blogging for a bit. As noted by Skeptikal on my previous post, WtD is considering going in a new direction. That’s fine–I follow well! It was mentioned that climate change took a major hit in the Australian election–and he insists this will harm science while continuing to use such terms as “Greenhouse Mafia”. He also complains there are mostly men in the new cabinet. Hey, we should listen to women, right? I, being a woman, should be listened to above the male at WtD! How nice of him to notice! (Just kidding, of course. Male/female has nothing to do with the qualifications of a speaker or writer, though it does figure into surrogacy. Beyond child-bearing, it is not relevant.)
Articles to check out: (I am not endorsing all the aspects of these blogs. Commenters who come in and rail about my endorsing “whatever” while be deleted. If you want to know if I agreed, ask.)
“One of the climate alarmist’s standard responses to any criticism of the theory of global warming is that unless the person is a climate scientist themselves, the point being made is from a position of ignorance and can therefore be ignored. As with most propaganda designed to silence any opposition, there’s an element of truth in it.
However, I think there are a number of obvious rebuttals to such an arrogant and dismissive stance.
The regularity with which the skeptic community eviscerates alarmist papers indicates to me that they’re actually more on top of the hard science than the alarmists researchers. In general, the depth of science expertise in the skeptic community is reflected in the technical content of the leading skeptic sites and the quality of the comments, which indicate an unusually high proportion of visitors with some sort of science, engineering or mathematical background; slightly geeky to be frank but the knowledge in other areas extends well beyond those narrow confines.”
“I was once approached by a friend who is concerned about the danger of human-caused global warming. He asserted that when it comes to scientific issues of major public concern like this, it is “not what you believe but who you believe”. I think he meant that my then hesitant scepticism about global warming was pointless, for as a cartoonist I must be as inadequate to judge the science as he was. For that matter it seems all of us who are untrained in “climate science” have no option but to respect the peer-reviewed authority of the climate science establishment. Of course, as a revered public intellectual, my friend did not see it as his duty to sit on his hands. He felt bound, as many have, to vigorously support the scientific and political authority of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and regional associates like the CSIRO.”
I will not be available to answer comments for a few days, so please be patient. Consider it more time to work on debunking my debunking!