tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6710175078340795303.post1127255453169581697..comments2023-10-03T10:49:36.259-06:00Comments on Great are the Works of the Lord: Selling OutLuke C.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02384002232303567806noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6710175078340795303.post-88208763475209261032008-05-09T10:50:00.000-06:002008-05-09T10:50:00.000-06:00Just a couple quick comments that come to mind upo...Just a couple quick comments that come to mind upon a first reading of this post...<BR/><BR/>Fraud may be too harsh of a term, because it implies that the scientists are knowingly misleading the public. I don't know that that's the case; I would say that they are just ignoring any evidence that contradicts their hypothesis. I don't know that it constitutes fraud. So you make a good correction there. I would change my wording to "some fraud perhaps, definitely incompetence, or at least capitulation."<BR/><BR/>Actually, the second New Statesman article is not particularly refuting of the first, as the latter uses old and incorrect data and ignores one of the key claims of Mr. Whitehouse. The data was shown to be wrong by those scientists I linked to awhile back, and furthermore it is based on global temp readings that have been shown to be affected by poor choice of equipment location. Meanwhile, the most accurate temp readings are those taken in the USA, which have the 1930's as the hottest years. Which leads me to Whitehouse's claim: we are currently at the same temperature as 1930. What Mr. Lynas is doing is trying to have his cake and eat it too. Using a common trick of the global warming crowd, he claims that no matter how warm or cold it gets, global warming is happening. Now, to cover the silliness of this claim, they have switched from calling it "global warming" to "climate change," as that covers both warming and cooling. <BR/><BR/>Mr Lynas also ends his article with an extremely ignorant statement: "If the 99% are wrong, and the 1% right, we will be making some unnecessary efforts to shift away from fossil fuels, which in any case have lots of other drawbacks and will soon run out. I’d hate to offend anyone here, but that’s what I’d call a no-brainer." As economists like Bjorn Lomborg and writers like Mark Steyn have pointed out, the "unnecessary efforts" pose significant problems for the third world. Already we are seeing the horrible effects of the global warming legislation, with food prices skyrocketing everywhere. If we care about the third world, we will stop this nonsense post haste.<BR/><BR/>As for "selling out"... there are different reasons for it than just monetary ones. Prestige and media attention can be quite tempting, but an even greater force is that of peer approval. It is rare, especially in the scientific field, for one to willing be out of line with the scientific thinking of the day. It took great courage for Galileo, just as it takes great courage for Dr. Gray to speak his mind. It is much easier to go along with the popular opinion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com