Comments on: Phil Jones gives sensible answer to dodgy question, fuels Canadian trollumnists http://carbonfixated.com/phil-jones-gives-sensible-answer-to-dodgy-question-fuels-canadian-trollumnists/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=phil-jones-gives-sensible-answer-to-dodgy-question-fuels-canadian-trollumnists Photosynthesising in a CO2-enriched world Mon, 06 Feb 2012 04:21:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Mark E. Gillar http://carbonfixated.com/phil-jones-gives-sensible-answer-to-dodgy-question-fuels-canadian-trollumnists/comment-page-1/#comment-1870 Mark E. Gillar Tue, 06 Apr 2010 06:04:36 +0000 http://carbonfixated.com/phil-jones-gives-sensible-answer-to-dodgy-question-fuels-canadian-trollumnists/#comment-1870 Lord Monckton explains why this decision (regarding Phil Jones) should come as no surprise: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/markgillar/2010/04/03/lord-christopher-monckton-discusses-global-warming* Lord Monckton explains why this decision (regarding Phil Jones) should come as no surprise:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/markgillar/2010/04/03/lord-christopher-monckton-discusses-global-warming*

]]> By: CAM http://carbonfixated.com/phil-jones-gives-sensible-answer-to-dodgy-question-fuels-canadian-trollumnists/comment-page-1/#comment-1169 CAM Thu, 18 Feb 2010 23:44:45 +0000 http://carbonfixated.com/phil-jones-gives-sensible-answer-to-dodgy-question-fuels-canadian-trollumnists/#comment-1169 This 'honest broker', 'third way' nonsense is just too unbelievable, really, especially from a reporter with such a loose grasp on the facts as Wente. For a middle position, she could try just honestly commenting on the science. Thanks for the comment, Jim. And if you like Daily Mash, don't miss <a href="http://carbonfixated.com/cru-email-theft-perspectives/" rel="nofollow">this one</a>. This ‘honest broker’, ‘third way’ nonsense is just too unbelievable, really, especially from a reporter with such a loose grasp on the facts as Wente. For a middle position, she could try just honestly commenting on the science.

Thanks for the comment, Jim. And if you like Daily Mash, don’t miss this one.

]]> By: Jim Prall http://carbonfixated.com/phil-jones-gives-sensible-answer-to-dodgy-question-fuels-canadian-trollumnists/comment-page-1/#comment-1141 Jim Prall Wed, 17 Feb 2010 21:37:26 +0000 http://carbonfixated.com/phil-jones-gives-sensible-answer-to-dodgy-question-fuels-canadian-trollumnists/#comment-1141 The "now what?" ending from Wente was particularly vapid. At least she is distancing herself from the rabid right's claims that all science is a lie. But in between "a few lines in the thousands of pages of IPCC AR4 need to be corrected" and "all scientists are liars", the is an awful lot of room for manoeuvre. I don't think she makes the case she believes she has, which appears to favor some kind of "honest broker" neutrality or Lomborgism on the question of whether we need to reduce carbon emissions. She seems to think that a nice middle position would be "don't get too alarmed, as the alarmists are asking." But would this not have exactly the same policy implications as "don't believe a word all those lying scientists are saying" - i.e., do nothing, or at least delay until ... what? Until the scientists find something more persuasive that the multi-thousand scientist IPCC process with its thousand-plus-page Assessment Reports with tens of thousands of footnotes? Until all right wing politicians and newspaper editors somehow drop their opposition to any policy response at all? P.S. Great blog - I'll link to it from mine. I especially appreciated your find of http://carbonfixated.com/trees-will-not-become-unstoppable-killing-machines-admit-climate-scientists/ I'm now hooked on DailyMash. The “now what?” ending from Wente was particularly vapid. At least she is distancing herself from the rabid right’s claims that all science is a lie. But in between “a few lines in the thousands of pages of IPCC AR4 need to be corrected” and “all scientists are liars”, the is an awful lot of room for manoeuvre. I don’t think she makes the case she believes she has, which appears to favor some kind of “honest broker” neutrality or Lomborgism on the question of whether we need to reduce carbon emissions. She seems to think that a nice middle position would be “don’t get too alarmed, as the alarmists are asking.”
But would this not have exactly the same policy implications as “don’t believe a word all those lying scientists are saying” – i.e., do nothing, or at least delay until … what? Until the scientists find something more persuasive that the multi-thousand scientist IPCC process with its thousand-plus-page Assessment Reports with tens of thousands of footnotes? Until all right wing politicians and newspaper editors somehow drop their opposition to any policy response at all?

P.S. Great blog – I’ll link to it from mine. I especially appreciated your find of http://carbonfixated.com/trees-will-not-become-unstoppable-killing-machines-admit-climate-scientists/ I’m now hooked on DailyMash.

]]>