J. Peden's comment

[Sunsettommy]

From HERE

Quote:J.Peden (09:41:40) :

Hoof and mouth disease, Dr. Ravetz? Well,

1] Quite simply, Dr. Ravetz, GW itself is not even a proven net disease entity, regardless of its cause. Essentially all we’ve seen from Climate Science is obsessive, hysterical, miopic, one sided, purchased, disasterizing of GW. With that kind of wild, negative “could”, “might” thinking it’s a wonder the Climate Scientists, enc., aren’t terminally worried about doing anything whatsoever at any time, anywhere – or not doing it.

But if it would make any genuine PNS GW disasterizers feel better, for a mere $10 billion I will assemble a bunch of scientists who will “prove” – exactly as did the ipcc’s Post Normal Science, because that’s what it is – that GW will eventuate in the closest “climate” and derivitive situation we can get here to Heaven on Earth.

2] CO2 has not been shown to be an etiologic agent of any significant Global Warming, ever. Moreover, the CO2AGW hypothesis itself has been proven wrong by what little science the Climate Scientists have done in terms of their own critical predictions – which they then deny as critical!

3] The alleged cure to the CO2AGW claimed disease is obviously worse than the alleged disease. And, where the rubber meets the road, whole Countries have already made that exact call.

China and India have already applied their own version of your PNS, Dr. Ravetz, if you want to call it that, and have found that any restriction upon their development via massive coal-fired energy plant construction is not wise – at the least in respect to the matter of the alleged CO2AGW cure being in fact worse than the alleged CO2AGW disease, if not also in respect to the whole hypothesized CO2AGW disease mechanism itself.

4] Finally, Dr. Ravetz, when are you going to call for the conduct of real Science by Climate Science, by demanding that Climate Scientists actually use the Scientific Method, instead of employing what is essentially gigantic blame and disasterizing Propaganda Operation, which is obviously designed to accomplish other, non-scientific, generally destructive goals?

The prudent thing to do right now about CO2AGW qua Global Disease is nothing. Valid pollution concerns, along with efficiency and resource management considerations, should be quite enough to guide our use of fossil fuel and other sources of energy.

I would prefer the Scientific Method too,along with open lines of communication between the authors and scientists as well as researchers, who wants the background of the paper and so on.

[Richard111]

I first read James A. Peden's editorial about three years ago. This post prompted me to to go back and have a look. Wow! He has updated it!! Do go and have a look. Lots of interesting stuff.

Editorial: The Great Global Warming Hoax?