- Apr 1, 2011
- 169,942
- 47,187
- 2,180
Climategate 2.0: Alarmist admits ‘not especially honest’ on hockey stick | JunkScience.com
and what is the difference between a climate denier and a climate skeptic, anyway?
From the Climategate 2.0 collection, the University of East Anglias Douglas Maraun has critical words about the alarmist mobs reaction to the debunking of Michael Manns hokey stick:
date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:05:20 +0100
from: Douglas Maraun
subject: Informal Seminar TODAY
to: [email protected]
Dear colleagues,
Id 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 Manns 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,
Douglas
[Emphasis added]
and what is the difference between a climate denier and a climate skeptic, anyway?
From the Climategate 2.0 collection, the University of East Anglias Douglas Maraun has critical words about the alarmist mobs reaction to the debunking of Michael Manns hokey stick:
date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:05:20 +0100
from: Douglas Maraun
subject: Informal Seminar TODAY
to: [email protected]
Dear colleagues,
Id 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 Manns 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,
Douglas
[Emphasis added]
