Home > AGW, Climate Change, Global Warming, Omniclimate, Skepticism > Whither a Climate Debate?

Whither a Climate Debate?

Gavin Schmidt writes at RealClimate

“The obvious ineptitude of this contribution underlines quite effectively how little debate there is on the fundamentals if this is the best counter-argument that can be offered.”

But it has been my impression that the main story, Monckton’s press releases notwithstanding, has been (and still is) the FPS Editor remarking that there is a considerable number of scientists skeptical of the IPCC conclusions.

The FPS Executive Committee now states on the FPS July 2008 page that they do not agree with the previous remark, suggesting it is all a matter of opinion.

However, with the APS jumping in against Monckton’s paper with red inks (thankfully now turned to black), and more than one call for the FPS Editor to be “fired” from his volunteer position for the mere reason that he made that remark, I wonder what kind of “debate” could at all be possible?

Actually, I’d rather the APS had replied with Gavin’s words “The obvious ineptitude of this contribution etc etc” challenging any of its readers to come up with something better than Monckton’s.

That would have given debate a chance. As things stand, I pretty much doubt any against-consensus contribution would appear on the FPS in the future, even were such a contribution to surface (and am sure, it won’t: otherwise yet more people’s bosses will receive e-mails asking to “fire the heretics”, an ominous metaphore it there’s ever been one)

Advertisements
  1. Craig Allen
    2009/03/13 at 14:00

    ‘censure’ does not mean the same thing as ‘censorship’.

    A purported scientific journal, deservers censure (i.e criticism) for publishing tripe.

    Are you suggesting that scientific journals should publish anything that gets sent their way regardless of quality, lest they be guilty of ‘censorship’?

    Are you sure you understand the implications of such an approach?

    How about this one … Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New ‘Intelligent Falling’ Theory

  2. Craig Allen
    2009/03/13 at 10:09

    The call for censure is not because the article is skeptical of global warming, but because like the rest of his scribbling, is incompetent drivel. This is the case with so much of the publication of the anti AGW crowd. I have no doubt that if someone could come up with credible scientific research, which is well reasoned and is not counter to the data, then it would be welcomed for publication. It just doesn’t seem to happen.

    The fact that the anti-AGW crown are so desperate as to consider the ramblings of Monchton to be legitimate science is rather sad really.

    • 2009/03/13 at 10:24

      Craig – Are you calling for quality-based censorship? Are you sure you understand its implications?

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: