… and what is the difference between a “climate denier” and a “climate skeptic”, anyway?
From the Climategate 2.0 collection, the University of East Anglia’s Douglas Maraun has critical words about the alarmist mob’s reaction to the debunking of Michael Mann’s hokey stick:
date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:05:20 +0100
from: “Douglas Maraun”
subject: Informal Seminar TODAY
to: cru.internal@uea.ac.ukDear colleagues,
I’d like to invite all of you to todays discussion seminar, 4pm in the
coffee room:“Climate science and the media”
After the publication of the latest IPCC, the media wrote a vast
number of articles about possible and likely impacts, many of them
greatly exaggerated. The issue seemed to dominate news for a long time
and every company had to consider global warming in its advertisement.
However, much of this sympathy turned out to be either white washing
or political correctness. Furthermore, recently and maybe especially
after the “inconvenient truth” case and the Nobel peace prize going to
Al Gore, many irritated and sceptical comments about so-called
“climatism” appeared also in respectable newspapers.Against the background of these recent developments, we could discuss
the relation of climate science to the media, the way it is, and the
way it should be.In my opinion, the question is not so much whether we should at all
deal with the media. Our research is of potential relevance to the
public, so we have to deal with the public. The question is rather how
this should be done. Points I would like to discuss are:-Is it true that only climate sceptics have political interests and
are potentially biased? If not, how can we deal with this?
–How should we deal with flaws inside the climate community? I think,
that “our” reaction on the errors found in Mike Mann’s work were not
especially honest.-How should we deal with popular science like the Al Gore movie?
–What is the difference between a “climate sceptic” and a “climate denier”?
-What should we do with/against exaggerations of the media?
-How do we avoid sounding religious or arrogant?
-Should we comment on the work/ideas of climate scepitics?If you have got any further suggestions or do think, my points are not
interesting, please let me know in advance.See you later,
Douglas
[Emphasis added]
I second Doug but would add this question.
As a past chair of some scientific state of the art international conferences myself, the IPCC list of scientists in agreement looks curiously like they just took a list of conference participants and did not even try to limit themselves to presenters at various conferences. Presenter’s would have been listed somewhat in groups of topical interest to themselves and peers. The IPCC list is all over the map and not organized in any logical format. If it was open and scientists signed up in agreement the list would be grouped somewhat by institution and or working niche.
It is not. It looks and I suspect a listing from different conference attenders. I have not checked this yet myself but I have been told by a current top 100 in the world robotics leaders (my son following in our family automation and robotics legacy) that many of the IPCC listed names are listed more than once. Example would my being listed at one conference as Chase H. Kenyon, at another as Dr. C Hume Kenyon, and at a third as C. H Kenyon CMfgE.
He told me he has seen occurrences where the IPCC listed a single individual four times as being in agreement with their conclusions, when the individual had presented at one conference only and that was in opposition to the IPCC conclusions.
Is this true, have the IPCC been this obviously dishonest and unethical in supporting their goals????????
I would really like to have someone take the time for an exposee if this is true, it should be made public knowledge.
Suggestion for the IPCC: Would you please publish only scientific facts, instead of your politically motivated theories on climate? Maybe you would not have so many PR problems with skeptics.