Re:EPA: Pruitt will launch program to 'critique' climate sci...
by mturmon on Friday June 30, 2017 @01:23PM
(#14672203)
To my knowledge, Freeman Dyson has no peer reviewed research contributions in the climate literature. That should be the price of entry, otherwise there is nothing of substance to critique.
[dead]
Re:EPA: Pruitt will launch program to 'critique' climate sci...
by dang on Saturday July 01, 2017 @07:48PM
(#14679799)
Please don't do this here.
Re:EPA: Pruitt will launch program to 'critique' climate sci...
by voice_of_reason on Friday June 30, 2017 @01:35PM
(#14672313)
There are climate scientists who are proponents of CAGW and who believe in creationism: http://www.christianpost.com/news/climate-change-evangelical...
Does it automatically make CAGW hypothesis wrong? Does it make their skills and knowledge in climate science less valuable?
Re:EPA: Pruitt will launch program to 'critique' climate sci...
by grasshopperpurp on Friday June 30, 2017 @01:43PM
(#14672371)
"Does it make their skills and knowledge in climate science less valuable?"
I was speaking specifically of Spencer, and, yes, it calls into question everything he professes.
Lindzen retired only in 2013. I don't see how this makes his opinion about CAGW less valuable, especially given the fact that he was skeptical about CAGW hypothesis for a long time.
"Judith Curry also used to be a scientist and quit her academic job; presumably being a shill pays WAY better." - where's the proof that she is a "shill"?
Roy Spencer is a renowned scientist in my book: "Roy Warren Spencer is a meteorologist, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. He has served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center."
Again, where is the proof that he is oil industry's shill?