'You might think journalists at a popular science magazine would be able to investigate and reason.
In DenierGate, watch New Scientist closely as it does the unthinkable and tries to defend gross scientific malpractice by saying it’s okay because other people have done other things (that were not related) a little bit wrong and a long time ago. Move along ladies and gentlemen, there’s nothing to see…
The big problem for this formerly good publication is that it has decided already what the answer is to any question on climate change (and the answer could be warm or cold, but it’s always ALARMING). That leaves it clutching for sand-bags to prop up its position as the king-tide sweeps away any journalistic credibility it might have had.
...
spot the appearance of the mythical “HUGE body of evidence”. Can anyone at New Scientist find that one mystery paper with empirical evidence showing that carbon causes major warming? Just ONE? That’s major warming, not minor. And that’s empirical, i.e., by observation, not by simulation.'
Who’s on Question Time Tonight? #BBCQT
10 hours ago
2 comments:
So having abandoned science, and adopted a position of faith on global warming, warning us that we are in the last days before Armageddon, perhaps New Scientist [sic] should change its name. May I humble suggest "The Watchtower"
Major warming? Sure the ice ages. And before that volcanoes. There was one event where volcanic output covered an area of the earth equal to the area of the USA. That caused a huge dying off of species. We emit about 100 times as much co2 as all the present day volcanoes put together ... see USGS for details. In the past, high co2 levels have been associated with a hot earth and low co2 levels with a cold earth. Geophysics is still physics and physics tells us that more co2 will make the world a hotter place.
Post a Comment