angliss
The Basics
- Name: angliss
angliss’s Recent Comments
Click here to view comment in original post
Other categories
Having read the entire list pretty closely, there's a few other categories you'll find too:
a) qualified people who are OK with the idea of AGW but don't think the IPCC got it right.
b) qualified people who are skeptical of AGW en toto.
c) qualified people who have issues with the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth".It's a sorry reflection on our society that Gore's efforts went pretty much nowhere until a movie came out as a supplement to his book by the same name.On Gwyn Prins and Steve Rayner on climate change posted 1 year, 10 months ago 4 Responses
Click here to view comment in original post
Contributers vs. reviewers
benp says: Andrew is simply wrong to claim that that IPCC "tag these people as support staff" it simply doesn't.
True, it tags them as "contributers". Given they helped pull together the report, they did "contribute" in a meaningful way, just not in a scientific way. Semantically, "contributer" could be anything from lead writer to reviewer to website designer to researcher.
If they'd shown up in the "Reviewers" section, you'd probably have a leg to stand on. As it is, the best you and I can do is complain about the semantics of how the IPCC used the word "contributer" and ask them to clean it up in the future. And that does nothing to advance this debate OR to disprove Andrew's critique of Mr. Ring.On Today: Thomas Ring posted 1 year, 10 months ago 66 Responses
Click here to view comment in original post
Thanks for this...
...Andrew. I was going to do something like this at one point, but if you're doing it, that means I can focus on debunking every single claim made by the combined total of all of the scientists - with data.
I'm up to 102 testable claims so far in my list.
Talk about a denier debunker's mother lode....On Today: Thomas Ring posted 1 year, 10 months ago 66 Responses
Click here to view comment in original post
Semantics
Nice try - saying a climate scientist debunking global heating was paid by Exxon is like saying a doctor claiming Vioxx is safe was paid by Merck - it's a conflict of interest that corrupts every conclusion that the scientist (or doctor) makes. It's nearly impossible to prove that the research money didn't unduly influence the outcome, and it's professionally unethical.
And there are people out there who are paid to distort scientific data, if you want to get all semantic about it. And yes, I can provide you with proof if you like:
On Today: Thomas Ring posted 1 year, 10 months ago 66 Responses
Click here to view comment in original post
Conflicts of Interest too?
Are you going to dive into the supporters of the various "experts" as well? For example, if someone has a conflict of interest because they're being funded by ExxonMobil, or if he/she has a known history of association with people who are paid to distort science (like Steve Milloy of Junkscience.com and DemandDebate.com or Ken Green of the CEI)?On Today: Thomas Ring posted 1 year, 10 months ago 66 Responses