Thread: Happy Earth Day
View Single Post
Old 04-30-2009, 12:56 PM
  #28  
Winged Wheeler
Libertarian Resistance
 
Winged Wheeler's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 757 FO
Posts: 1,057
Default

Originally Posted by N2264J View Post
A layman drawing conclusions from raw scientific data is like Cheney and Rumsfeld interpreting raw intelligence. We all know how well that turned out.

George Monbiot: This is a dazzling debunking of climate change science. It is also wildly wrong | Comment is free | The Guardian
OK, I read your link. I am not convinced--that should come as no surprise.

Monbiot starts out with an ad hominem attack on Monckton's qualifications to comment on this issue. One of his deficiencies (according to Monbiot) is that he is trained as a journalist. A curious and, I think, counterproductive argument from a man who is himself a journalist.

The specifics in this article are, like many arguments on either side, cherry picked (in Monbiot's own words). I am happy to debate any specific issues, but I am not going to go point by point through Monbiot's article.

I will, however, make 2 remarks:

1. Monbiot criticizes non-scientist Monckton for talking science. I looked but was unable to find similar criticisms by Monbiot of Al Gore. Perhaps different standards apply for those with whom Monbiot agrees?

2. Monbiot concludes with the following-- "A scientific paper is one published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. This means it has been subject to scrutiny by other experts in the field."
I disagree. A scientific paper is a scientific paper prior to its publication in some journal. Scrutiny by experts is good--it should help prevent fraud, allow for verification (or falsification), and move the discussion forward, but it is not a necessary condition for science.

Did science occur at the bike shop and at Kittyhawk, or only later when it was published?

WW
Winged Wheeler is offline