On Walter Cunningham:
---
Walter Cunningham claims to be fussed about science being politicised. But he himself has done exactly that.
from his wiki, he apologised to scientists for having politicised this himself.
In a follow-up interview to his May 31 interview with NPR's Steve Inskeep airing June 1, 2007, on NPR News' Morning Edition, Griffin said the following:
--- repeat of your post of his comments ---
Some climate scientists referred to his remarks as ignorant.[15] In particular, James E. Hansen, NASA's top official on climate change, said Griffin’s comments showed "arrogance and ignorance", as millions will likely be harmed by global warming.[16] Jerry Mahlman, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said that Griffin was either "totally clueless" or "a deep antiglobal warming ideologue".[17]
In a closed-door meeting on June 4, 2007 at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Griffin said:
"Unfortunately, this is an issue which has become far more political than technical, and it would have been well for me to have stayed out of it." "All I can really do is apologize to all you guys.... I feel badly that I caused this amount of controversy over something like this."[15]
In a later interview he made these claims.
"
The biggest problems I see with the sorry state of “climate science,” as the public comes to know it through the media, are the alarmist claims, unsupported by data and history, being presented as facts. When these claims cannot be validated by empirical data, they attempt to justify them by equally dishonest claims of proof by “consensus”. These alarmist claims create unwarranted fear in order to promote their political and profiteering agendas, while establishing regulatory policies that kill business and grow government – all at a terrific cost to taxpayers and energy consumers.
Without the science to back up their wild forecasts and claims, and the overwhelming evidence for natural temperature variation, alarmists try to exploit this unwarranted fear by resorting to the precautionary argument: “We must do something just in case we are responsible, because the consequences are too terrible if we are to blame and do nothing.”
"
It seems to me that those underlined claims are totally preposterous. We have had every academy of science, every world government (except, latterly, Trump) accept that science. It is an absolute nonsense to claim there is no science to back the claims, that there is no empirical data and that there is no data and history behind climate science.
As the guy has admitted himself, and as his critics point out, he has ignorantly politicised this.
- Forums
- Science & Medicine
- how stupid can denial get?
how stupid can denial get?, page-157
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 505 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)