Climategate 2.0: Alarmist admits ‘not especially honest’ on hockey stick

Discussion in 'Politics' started by bripat9643, Nov 23, 2011.

  1. bripat9643

    bripat9643 Diamond Member

    Apr 1, 2011
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    Climategate 2.0: Alarmist admits ‘not especially honest’ on hockey stick |

    … and what is the difference between a “climate denier” and a “climate skeptic”, anyway?

    From the Climategate 2.0 collection, the University of East Anglia’s Douglas Maraun has critical words about the alarmist mob’s reaction to the debunking of Michael Mann’s hokey stick:

    date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:05:20 +0100
    from: “Douglas Maraun”
    subject: Informal Seminar TODAY

    Dear colleagues,

    I’d like to invite all of you to todays discussion seminar, 4pm in the
    coffee room:

    “Climate science and the media”

    After the publication of the latest IPCC, the media wrote a vast
    number of articles about possible and likely impacts, many of them
    greatly exaggerated. The issue seemed to dominate news for a long time
    and every company had to consider global warming in its advertisement.
    However, much of this sympathy turned out to be either white washing
    or political correctness. Furthermore, recently and maybe especially
    after the “inconvenient truth” case and the Nobel peace prize going to
    Al Gore, many irritated and sceptical comments about so-called
    “climatism” appeared also in respectable newspapers.

    Against the background of these recent developments, we could discuss
    the relation of climate science to the media, the way it is, and the
    way it should be.

    In my opinion, the question is not so much whether we should at all
    deal with the media. Our research is of potential relevance to the
    public, so we have to deal with the public. The question is rather how
    this should be done. Points I would like to discuss are:

    -Is it true that only climate sceptics have political interests and
    are potentially biased? If not, how can we deal with this?
    -How should we deal with flaws inside the climate community? I think,
    that “our” reaction on the errors found in Mike Mann’s work were not
    especially honest.

    -How should we deal with popular science like the Al Gore movie?
    -What is the difference between a “climate sceptic” and a “climate denier”?
    -What should we do with/against exaggerations of the media?
    -How do we avoid sounding religious or arrogant?
    -Should we comment on the work/ideas of climate scepitics?

    If you have got any further suggestions or do think, my points are not
    interesting, please let me know in advance.

    See you later,
    [Emphasis added]
  2. bucs90

    bucs90 Gold Member

    Feb 25, 2010
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    Global warming is a hoax? Well, no one believed it anyway. A person stupid enough to believe that shit would be dumb enough to spend weeks camped out in a tent, not showering or shaving, yelling about something they have no clue about, inviting arrest , then wondering why no one will hire them. NO ONE is stupid enough to do that right!!!

Share This Page