Not exact matches
This does not seem to be a central critique of Joe and Stefan
against our piece, but I outline this issue here
because there is a falseness in the way the whole
climate science community has posed the goal - setting and crank - turning debate.
In part
because of the legal cases directed
against Mann, but also cases concerning other researchers, there is now a
Climate Science Legal Defense Fund.
Just
because I have disagreed with the importance of your substantive points concerning MBH, it does not imply that I am somehow
against openness in
climate science.
And yet, 400 years later, here we are: watching a public official tasked with guiding the educational trajectories of his community's children rail
against the accepted
science on
climate change —
because its conclusions threaten to undermine the local political culture.
And they have influenced a much larger body of
climate scientists (and other scientists) into going along with them,
because they are brought into this by working to fight the good fight
against the war on
science by the dark forces.
I might as well label you an idiot for using it, when you've never met me, have no idea of my competence or the strength of my arguments for or
against any aspect of
climate dynamics (
because on this list I argue both points of view as the
science demands and am just as vigorous in smacking down bullshit physics used to challenge some aspect of CAGW as I am to question the physics or statistical analysis or modelling used to «prove» it).
If there's a film which questions
climate change, it's
because the broadcaster has declared a war
against science.
I'm
against Ocean Acidification theory
because I've done loads and loads of background reading... about the lack of credible scientific evidence that it represents any kind of problem... in the eyes of all those undecideds who can't make up their mind whether they agree with me on
climate science or whether I'm talking bollocks...»
I want them all taken off to gulag in UNtopia, Northern Minnesota —
because climate consensus is a crime
against humanity and
science.
Three years ago, he launched his defamation suit
against me
because he was outraged that CEI's Rand Simberg had made a «knowingly false comparison» between
climate science and sexual molestation.
They seem also to have chosen to deny
climate science; perhaps
because by doing so they can further their case
against the wind farm.
One former Cooler Heads member, who spoke on the condition of anonymity
because of fear of a punitive backlash, said the coalition's mission under Ebell was to be a «Johnny - on - the - spot for
climate denialism» and to simulate a «cacophony of voices»
against climate - change
science.