Neil - I watched it all - did I mention we have been snowed in
. I noted Santer next to Michaels and was not tempted to violence as his emails suggested. I watched it all, including Lindzen, Curry, Santer. The whole lot.
Here in the UK we have a great institution - the BBC. OK it has its faults and it is taxpayer funded but in its past it has produced some truly superb factual TV - science, politics, history - superb stuff - world class. I chose my career based on the Horizon documentary called 'Now The Chips Are Down' which was about the coming world if IT.
But on this subject they have just decided to cover their ears to any dissenting voices. No investigation, no challenge, no in depth analysis.
Even their latest scientific star Brian Cox says anything that challenges this stuff is 'polemic cack' - even when it includes quite a few scientists. (BTW you can work out what 'cack' might mean in your own vocabulary...). So they look away and never challenge it.
Where is the investigative zeal that exposes tyrants, corruption and at the same time explained scientific discovery, technological developments and the possible future to the puplic ? It is too busy making 'cack' TV of dancing celebreties, soap operas and poor comedy - which is just as well made by the commercial channels.
The BBC is not all bad - if you get a chance to watch Ancient Worlds do so, it is superb.
But back to my core point.
There are lots of scientists who DO earnestly believe we are doomed. There are also loads who do not. It is a debate. It should be had in the open and it should have light shone on it. It should not be seen as settled, it is not a proven fact, it is not a law. It is a theory.
To explain where I am let me describe an event recently on the BBC. Andrew Montford (aka Bishop Hill) appeared on their Newsnight programme just after the Pakistan floods hit - a terrible tragedy for all concerned.
The BBC wanted to pin this on AGW and did their best to link it in the report before his interview, they wanted him to be a frothy mouthed madman saying this is all nonsense. His response was not a flat out denial (nearly a 'denier ?') - his response was a clear "we just don't know". The UN 'scientist' they had on to debate with him just nodded and agreed.
And that is where I think we are - we just don't know.
Sentra - I agree with your point - that deserves investigation - although one author did point out that it would seem strange that there was no warming at all as the rest of the world was warming too at the same time. Mind you according to the trees in the 'trick' to 'hide the decline', er, trick did show a coolling. Maybe someone should tell them.
The main point of my including this was that it is an example of where non-scientists have gone the extra mile (or kilometre) and expanded (and in some cases corrected) the original to come up with a new, different and better result. I'm glad the author of the original paper, an AGW supporter, has said he also likes it. Its open science, a debate, analysis.
In historical context I seem to recall that Isaac Newton made sure that an opponent's papers that challenged his own were published to encourage that debate and challenge.
Quote:
|
If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants.
|