5 ms·
The part that is astounding about this article: it was written on December 9th, 2009, well after the CRU email/data dump; it is about climate skepticism; yet,
by patrickgzill 17y ago
The part that is astounding about this article: it was written on December 9th, 2009, well after the CRU email/data dump; it is about climate skepticism; yet, it has NO mention of the CRU email/data dump while discussing said skepticism.
(to be fair, perhaps the interview was conducted before the CRU dump and only now is being published; but why didn't the editor catch it?)
- SamAtt 17y agoPeople who believe in AGW don't see anything wrong with those e-mails. They consider it just another part of the "extremely well organized, well funded" PR Campaign. Their argument would be that a bunch of people are taking sentences out of context in order to make standard statistical analysis seem like a cover up. I don't agree with that but I know enough people on the other side to know that's what they think.
- iterationx 17y agoAnd there are a bunch of AGW people who believe the noble lie, ie. "Since we need to be doing all this green stuff anyway, let's just do it (carbon tax, population reduction) and not argue about these particular emails and let's just have a little faith in the system"