Read other letters about this article

• Wednesday, July 2, 2008 04:00 PM

  manacker This is pure junk, but thank you for putting it in one place so both your agenda and ignorance can be economically viewed:

  I mean, it's classic.

  The weaknesses of the AGW paradigm are:

  · It is based on agenda-driven science

  I see. Unlike say, yourself. But where's your backup for this? Why is the science on this subject more "agenda driven" than research in malaria, or cancer, or aerodynamics or bacterial ecology?? You have tens of thousands of people working in the field. The AGU, which has an unequivocal statement on the issue, has 50,000 members, almost all working scientists. But they have an "agenda?" What is it?

  It is based on computer model projections that suffer from the GIGO problem

  It will come as a gigantic shock to you, off in your bubble, that very few areas of current science do not use computer modeling in greater or lesser degree. You'd be even more amazed to learn that the people doing it are completely aware of the need to keep comparing model output with real observations. You have no specifics, but you're sure they don't know what they're doing. But only in this one area, climate change. If we're designing a plane or doing materials science modeling to create a new alloy, that's perfectly all right.

  It has not been validated by physically observed data

  Oh really??? Again, the specialists in the field disagree. And you have no back up. But we have to believe them instead of you.

  It relies upon measurements that are, themselves, so “massaged” that they are non-transparent and subject to manipulation

  Which can be detected in the peer review process you detest, (below) and is when it happens. But you still think a blanket, no-backup smear beats the judgement of the National Academies??

  It relies on an ineffectual and in-bred “peer review” process

  Love this. Yes, like all other science, climate studies are peer reviewed. But the process is only wrong when its done in climate study? If so, why? If not, why not? What's your alternative? Just have (say) the President's office decide what studies stand up and which should be rejected??

  You're a crank. A stone, died in the wool scientific crank. Ten years ago you'd be talking about your sugar cure for cancer. Get a life.

  —stet Read stet's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel