Comments Posted By John N.
Displaying 1 To 1 Of 1 Comments
CITIZEN SCIENTIST RE-IGNITES GLOBAL WARMING SKEPTICISM
I took 'mrk's advice and read what a statistically insignificant event the restatement due to McIntyre really was. I have to agree, and it seems most everyone commenting does too. So I guess that makes it settled science :)
What amazes me is just how significant the data was when it was wrong.
I love the argument that only people without industry ties are pure. What's really being said is only people funded by government can be trusted to be objective. The same government which seeks to grow its influence over the populace doesn't look for answers it doesn't want to hear. This government is seeking to justify increasing its regulatory powers. But why are these pure, objective, square-jawed, steely-eyed scientists so exercised by skeptics? I'll grant you that I have some suspicions.
McIntyre was either right or he was wrong. The source of his income may influence all manner of his outlook on life, but it doesn't alter the veracity of his results. Whether the proponents of the anthropogenic carbon argument are right, or not, I don't care who signed their paychecks; only their results. I can be convinced by evidence, but I'm not thus far. And "ad hominem" attacks on skeptics doesn't convince me at all.
Comment Posted By John N. On 14.08.2007 @ 12:47
