DeSmogBlog has some very worthwhile pieces on the
climate files, including a narrative summary of some years - long threads by Elizabeth May, the leader of Canada's Green Party (her conclusion: they show scientists at work); a description of review processes undertaken by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change posted by Kevin Trenberth, whose e-mail messages were highlighted by quite a few climate contrarian - skeptic - realist - denier types (pick one depending on your worl
climate files, including a narrative summary of some years - long threads
by Elizabeth May, the leader of Canada's Green Party (her conclusion: they show scientists at work); a description of review processes undertaken
by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change posted by Kevin Trenberth, whose e-mail messages were highlighted by quite a few climate contrarian - skeptic - realist - denier types (pick one depending on your worl
Climate Change posted
by Kevin Trenberth, whose e-mail messages were highlighted
by quite a few
climate contrarian - skeptic - realist - denier types (pick one depending on your worl
climate contrarian -
skeptic - realist - denier types (
pick one depending on your worldview).
Milloy's specious argument is a characteristic example for a method frequently employed
by «
climate skeptics»: from a host of scientific data, they cherry -
pick one result out of context and present unwarranted conclusions, knowing that a lay audience will not easily recognise their fallacy.
It is strange because we can witness «
skeptic» - style temperature graph cherry
picking by (two economists and) two actual
climate scientists of Boston University (Robert Kaufmann and Michael Mann).
For the uninitiated, Lord Monckton is the chap who recently claimed to have been a key influence on moving Margaret Thatcher to the
climate skeptic camp, and whose
climate change presentation was recently
picked apart piece -
by - piece and source -
by - source
by Dr John Abraham of the University of St. Thomas, Minnesota.
Pick any comment thread over the years of your blog, and no doubt you'll find a high % where concern is expressed
by «
skeptics» asserting a direct link between the source of funding and bias in the work of
climate scientists.