Monday, December 04, 2006

BBC to Climate Skeptics: Put Up or Shut Up

The Beeb's Richard Black writes that:

Of all the accusations made by the diverse community of climate skeptics, the most damaging by far is that the institutions of science have become biased against research which questions the IPCC consensus [that Global Warming is real and man-made], or which builds alternative explanations for the warming we have seen over the last century or so, and the other physical trends which go along with it.

Here, in the internet prairie, we find comments such as: "Science has become as blatantly biased in the direction of tragedy as television. But, given the way we fund and reward science and scientists, it was inevitable."


We find the IPCC criticized along the lines that it is "...an artfully constructed presentation of just the science that supports the fear of human-induced climate change. It is as one sided as a legal brief, which it resembles."

We find blanket condemnations such as: "We know that one's career and income are closely related to one's position on global warming."

These, aimed at the heart of science, are serious accusations. It is as though the apple tree, rather than the fruits, were rotten.

So the Beeb plans to investigate! In fact, they have issued a challenge to Global Warming Deniers. If you feel that the scientific community is targeting you or other skeptics,

...if you have evidence [documentary proof, not links to websites or vague ramblings] of research grants turned down because of a clash with the prevailing consensus, of instances where journals or conference organizers or consensus bodies have rejected "inconvenient" findings, please send it to us; my email address is at the bottom of this article.

It is also right here: Richard.Black-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk.

So, in light of all this, I hereby summon you, TOM HARRIS, Executive Director of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP), to rise of from your dark pit, darken this blog once again with your scratchings and, more importantly, send your proofs to the Beeb.

If you are right, Science must be razed to its very Foundations, and the structure rebuilt from scratch! Best if we get started swiftly!

2 comments:

EX-NDIP said...

Here's a bunch of skeptics that commented on Algore's Scarrey Movie . . . all Scientists, commenting within their fields of expertise . . .

Good Read on Algore’s movie . . . http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/h
arris061206.htm

So unlike the GW alarmists, who always say "Scientists Believe" . . . but who are these people. I am still waiting for the list . . .
The UN "hockey stick" graph is a fake, it can be exposed using their own writings.

Now we have the banks investing in Carbon Credits . . .

Banks Buy 200 billion Euros in Chinese Carbon Credits

http://www.planetark.com/dailynew
sstory.cfm/newsid/39268/story.htm

Renowned Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming – Caps Year of Vindication for Skeptics
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cf
m?party=rep&id=264777

Global Warming?
It has frequently been stated that the science community is overwhelmingly agreed that global warming is occurring, that it is caused by excess carbon dioxide and that human activities are responsible. I have searched and searched, but until recently I have found no data to back up that claim. Now I have those data.
In December 2004 Dr. Naomi Oreskes, a history professor at the University of California at San Diego published a claimed research of 928 scientific papers bearing upon the global warming issue. Astonishingly, she found that every single one of those papers found that global warming is real and human-caused. Wouldn’t any observer have some suspicion that there’s something wrong here? Out of nearly a thousand papers would not even one seem to cast some doubt on that outcome?
Having personally read hundreds of papers in refereed journals over the past several years, I certainly have my doubts. So, in fact, did Dr. Benny Peiser of the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University. Upon perusing the same 928 papers, he found that only one-third backed the so-called consensus view and “only one percent did so explicitly.”
Then Professor Dennis Bray of the GKSS National Research Centre in Germany conducted his own survey of hundreds of his colleagues in climate science, asking, on a scale of 1 to 7, “ To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?” He received 530 responses. The average was 3.62, near the middle with a slight tilt toward “disagree”, and more climatologists “strongly disagreed” than “strongly agreed”.
No consensus exists and, from my readings in the science, the actual evidence for anthropogenic global warming borders on non-existent.

Linda said...

Good comments and interesting links. One of the first mentions the work of Dr. Tim Patterson (also involved with FriendsofScience.org). Dr. Patterson was recently interviewed on a phone in radio show. His explanation of the reasons for his skepticism are very compelling. I came away convinced that we are being duped, and like you, I have had great trouble finding the evidence supporting anthropogenic global warming. I was glad to get the facts on the 928 studies. I have also seen this particular research used to dismiss skeptics. Anyway, the Patterson interview is at http://cfra.com/interviews/index.asp. Scroll down the page to Nov. 21st. The program is in 8 segements. REALLY worth listening to. This guy knows his stuff -- including some of the deceptive tactics of IPCC.