Who to believe, who to believe? (update)

I didn't bother to answer the last part of Matt/Anonymous's comment on my BBC bias on Global warming piece  because it was so wrong it didn't seem worth it. Fortunately Derek P has done it for me.

So here's Matt followed by Derek P.

'You just don't like the fact the bulk of the evidence points to global warming, and I don't think you really understand rhe principles of science either, Matt'

'DerekP said...

Yes, nice point, well made - I always enjoy reading your blog; but I think you were communicating with someone 'educated' in the NL era, so probably little capacity for critical analysis.

"If all the evidence starts to suggest climate change is not happening, then happy days!"

Erm, a significant facet of real science is that not "all the evidence" has to change to discredit the CAGW theory.

I guess that's why we see the Team and BBC hiding and ignoring evidence against CAGW; yet at the same time, because they're rumbled, we get the constant name-shifting as ,for example, from things like Catatrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (oh woe, calamity!) to Climate Change (which has incontravertibly been going on since well before humanity existed).


"Different opinions from different scientists analysing different datasets. So what?"

Well, the "so what?" is that as humanity does not have unlimited resources we have to prioritise.

If we waste trillions of dollars of resources in a vain attempt to unnecessarily modify climate by 0.1 degree, then those resources aren't available to deal with other real and immediate problems, which will have more significant long term effects - like not having any power to heat our homes to ward off the chilling effects of 'Global Warming'.'