More Shouty E-mails : Giving Scepticism a Bad NamePosted on August 25th, 2010 4 comments
Evidence of plot-losing ?
from: Don & Selina (don UNDERSCORE selina AT tiscali DOT co DOT uk)
sent: 25 August 2010 19:49:00
to: jo abbess
Dear Ms Abbess, if you are so sure about the facts of climate change (which by the way I believe is happening, but not catastrophic and not primarily CO2 driven), I will engage in open debate with you in Martini (anytime, anyplace, anywhere) fashion.
For starters are you a Climate Change Scientist ? Do you know anything about Climate Change Science ? Can you possibly dare to offer an opinion about it or question what the Scientists have said ?
The answer to all of these is “NO”. You are as much a “Climate Scientist” as I and your opinion is worth just as much, or little.
Dr. Don Keiller (MA, PhD, Cantab)
It’s these kind of shouty, haranguey e-mails that give Climate Change Scepticism such a bad name.
Please tone it down, Don.
4 responses to “More Shouty E-mails : Giving Scepticism a Bad Name”
Oh wow Jo
Considering the adult and mature tone of Dr Don – Your diatribes about how “uneducated” people are if they dare to have a differing view from yours, I find your description of sceptical posters asking sensible questions we all would like an answer to, as “shouty” and “haranguey” even hore farsical than your usual.
This from the IAC report – seems to sum it up for me
“Authors reported high confidence in some statements for which there is little evidence. Furthermore, by making vague statements that were difficult to refute, authors were able to attach “high confidence” to the statements. The Working Group II Summary for Policy Makers contains many such statements that are not supported sufficiently in the literature, not put into perspective, or not expressed clearly.”
Jo – you do this all the time.
Care to make a comment? – No shouty haranguey comments though please.
The IAC report also states in its Introduction
“To enhance its credibility and independence, the executive committee should include individuals from outside the IPCC or even outside the climate science community. IPCC also should appoint an executive director — with the status of a senior scientist equal to that of the Working Group co-chairs — to lead the Secretariat, handle day-to-day operations, and speak on behalf of the organization. The current position of the IPCC secretary does not carry a level of autonomy or responsibility equivalent to that of executive directors at other organizations, the IAC committee found.”
The last sentence is truly damning.
No real “Executive Diectors” checking on what the hell the “Team” was up to.
Irony, from a shouty, haranguey blogger.
You reinforce the empty headed stereotype.
Leave a reply