The core mission of Climate Change deniers (formerly known as “sceptics”) is to take you away from the Climate Change Science and lead you down some dark and unilluminated alley.
Don’t let them.
Don’t get sucked in to their unfounded assertions, their complicated-looking arguments. Don’t get hypnotised by your anger.
The Climate Change deniers want to delay and derail the Low Carbon society. They are not arguing for the benefit of Science. They are “debating” in order to take you away from the things you really need to be doing.
There’s nothing wrong in getting angry with Media reports of this so-called crisis. Do something to express your displeasure, and then get on with your work, your studies, your research.
Don’t let the Climate Change deniers waste your time or trip you up.
Here’s an example of a challenge I received today by e-mail. It looks reasonable enough, and the author even admits to being a non-scientist, and appears to want a calm, rational discussion.
I don’t have time to enter into discussion with this person, because I already know it’s a dead end. It’s from a Climate Change denier, seeking to waste my time. How do I know that ? It shouldn’t take you long to work this out.
re: Rigorous scientific methodology
from: M * ************
sent: 27 November 2009
to: jo abbess
Dear Ms Abbess.
I may not be a climate scientist, but do have experience in scientific methods of research.
My understanding is that science is never ‘settled’, it is progressive. In order for scientific knowledge to progress, the current dogma has to be challenged and a new hypothesis, peer reviewed before it can be accepted. This applies to all scientific disciplines.
It appears from the ‘hacked’ emails that the peer review process was restricted to a select coterie of scientists who all adhered to the AGW theory to the exclusion of scientists in the field with dissenting views. I am not alone in believing this devalues science and casts a shadow over their professionalism.
On the topic of their reliance on computer modelling for predicting future trends in climate, accuracy depends upon all the variables being known. Whilst scientific knowledge has progressed enormously, the vast numbers of factors which drive climate cannot be fully understood if they ever will be. An example of the shortcomings of computer modelling was seen with the grossly overinflated predicted numbers of heterosexual deaths attributable to HIV/AIDS infections. The computer models were flawed.
I have been horrified by the hysterical vilification of scientists with dissenting views on AGW which appear on some forums. I am merely trying to engage in a calm debate on what constitutes good science which employs rigorous methodology, not cherrypicked data to reflect personal beliefs.
I would welcome a considered response.
Yours sincerely
M * *************
I have received this type of message several times in the past, and I know it leads nowhere. The person writing is already convinced, and merely wishes me to expend my time and effort for no purpose.