Here I am sitting in the middle of the debate between the false prophet Stephen Schneider who has put me in the team with the denialists, and the crackpots who don’t know how elementary physics works.
Sorry guys: science is not binary, I encourage you to read "Against Method" by Paul Feyerabend. Crackpots are not scientist and people who think that scary scenarios are science are also not scientists.
I’ve had it.
I’m taking a temporary break in blogging, I am going to do things that are more fun.
But I do keep an eye on you.
I wrote on Watts up with that on June 25, 2010 at 4:31 pm:
In Pralls list on http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/skeptic_authors_table.html
He cites my title as doctorandus (rank number 397) which is strictly correct but the international equivalent is MSc Geoph. Apparently somebody in the past did not read my online CV.
He also cites my areas of research as “Arrhenius was wrong” yup that is the title of one of my online pages, so why didn’t he choose:
Homogenisation of Uccle and De Bilt based on census data
A processing aliasing artefact in the early Quelccaya ice core record
Langley infrared observations (1890) revisited
The debatable European summer temperature since 1500 of Luterbacher et al.
His google scholar failed to find:
Dietze, Peter and Hans Erren, 2003. The Greenhouse effect should not be redefined, Energy and Environment Vol.14, No 6, pp. 921-922, December 2003
So the conclusion is that I spend at least equal time in bashing cranks as criticising alarmist fairy tales.
Furtermore I do think that scientific authors should publish their data, that’s science isn’t it? I thought everybody was convinced about that, apparently not. Schneiders scary scenarios are the tenet of ACC. But I stopped believing false prophets a long time ago. It’s a well known fact that the IPCC is severely biased.
We lukewarmers don’t share the IPCC alarmistic views, there are many shades of grey between black and white.