Not his best work, but pretty funny:
Stephen Colbert on the IPCC report
Ha x 2 1
-
Posted 10:10 AM on 13 Feb 2007
by David Roberts -
Posted in
Read More About
David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/drgrist.
Add a Comment
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments
View as Flat
GreggC Posted 7:26 am
15 Feb 2007
Before you rush off to compose a scathing reply, please consider:
the "Summary for Policymakers" was delivered WITHOUT the data necessary to support the conclusions
the supporting data will be withheld from publication for months
the supporting data may be edited to comply with the published conclusions
some of the supporting data will "never ever" be published
I could not believe that anyone who wanted his scientific work to be taken seriously would try number 1, yet each following item is far worse than the previous.
Imagine that some nasty "denier" tried that. Would you be incapacitated by hysterical laughter? or would you be busy filling his inbox with (probably well deserved) incendiary replies? Does a "denier" have the same right to edit the data to make it comply with his conclusions? Does he have the same right to withhold the data necessary to verify his conclusions?
Quite simply, if a study followed the operational methods of the IPCC but concluded that global warming was of little ecological concern, it would be promptly dismissed as crackpot pseudo-science! That the IPCC report is accepted as "science" says far more about the reader than it says about the report.
Okay, now I'm ready for your reply. To be fair, please preface your defense of the IPCC report with a clear statement that items 1 through 4 above constitute an acceptable method when publishing scientific papers - especially those that you disagree with.
Permalink