Talking of healthy debate, the AGW debate is a debate – a debate about what to do for the best hopefully, rather than a debate about whether it’s “science” and whether it’s “proven” – I refer to my previous post – what a waste.
George Monbiot has been blogging on the recent backlash, so I’m sure George is probably one contribution to Clive James’s impression that there are more sceptical scientific views of AGW than there were. Unfair to chide Clive for suggesting that no one could claim the “the science is in” – as George suggests it is only ever in so far as it is … ever in. And that from someone who claims to be a serious defender of sceptical science as opposed to the writer of a light-hearted mgazine essay. Lighten up George – oh wait a minute – satire is OK when it’s on the other foot.
This is mostly not about science, it’s about conspiracy paranoia. Belief and scepticism can both lead to unwise acts of hypocrisy when dealing with paranoia.
(redcar.ac.uk …. I like it.)