AGW Sciencytist: You are Stupid. [krakatoa]

(I bogarted the headlines with this post by accident. I'll try to get that cleaned up.)

Climate Depot's Mark Morano continues to do amazing work on the Climate Gate scandal.

He has a tremendous grasp of the relevant studies, players & data, and demonstrates his mastery of the topic and of public relations in the following debate (under the fold) he has with Professor Matt Maslin, one of the Climate specialists who has been a primary driver of AGW alarmism in Europe.

This is terrific stuff, and you should check out Morano's transcript which includes links to all the points he made.

One of the things that jumped out of me, aside from his declaration that any who disagreed with him was unintelligent, was Maslin's assertion that he'd been having this debate for 20 years.

Checking out his bio, it becomes evident that 20 years spans his entire professional life, and includes his collegiate career.

I don't doubt his assertion in the least. It is because of this that he is so determined to ignore all contrary data, and to lash out at any who threatens his viewpoint.

This is a man whose entire life is dedicated to enshrining in the public consciousness a preconcieved notion that is suddenly and quite dramtically developing significant fundamental flaws, not the least of which is the inconvenient weather outside the windows.

-Whose bio boasts that he has recieved over £22 million in grants over the past 20 years.

-Whose eventual legacy is dependent upon the institutionalization of Global policy proscripting certain behaviors in accordance with his beliefs.

This is a man who, whether he acknowledges it or not, has become wed to a belief system that is utterly dependent upon a carefully managed and massaged set of precepts. I would find it remarkable for any average person to simply step back from that faith and objectively reassess his beliefs.

Unfortunately, this isn't an average person. His arguments carry the weight of his stature as a scientist, and fulfilling that scientific role requires he do just that: Examine challenges to his theories and beliefs, and adjust them as the data demands.

That he does not now even acknowledge that there are valid scientific arguments against his dogma does not demonstrate that he is any less of a man.

It simply reveals that he is no longer a scientist. And he seems to have a lot of company in heretofore influential positions.

(video of debate under the fold)

posted by xgenghisx at 05:34 PM

| Access Comments