"Will climate science become discredited by extremists?"
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20140719205632AAm5Ape
One thing he is not known for in that article is presenting any evidence of his accusation.
http://www.technologist.eu/climate-scien...
It is absurd that the biggest liars are also the ones who call everyone else liars and cry that they are being persecuted in some fashion.
By its very nature, science is conservative. Science does not “accept” hypotheses, it “fails to reject” them. Science does not claim to “prove” anything and it does claim to know the “truth” of anything.
For every Jim Hansen who was in front of the curve during the 1980s, there were thousands of scientists who thought the data and evidence were inconclusive. The “consensus” formed over time as the physical evidence improved qualitatively and became overwhelming quantitatively. If forced to pick a specific date, for many scientists that would be the 1997/98 El Nino. Although we had decent estimates of its periodicity prior to that time, it was the 1997/98 event that left a strong signal in multiple data sources and allowed scientists to more accurately pin down its behavior. It was also during the 1990s that we developed workable definitions of the MWP and LIA, a better understanding of the carbon cycle and issues involving sequestration, and saw the emergence of improved climate models.
He sounds like a lukewarmer. He does accept AGW but has issues with overselling AGW. He sounds kind of like Raisin Caine.
Perhaps for his book "Statistical Analysis in Climate Research," although personally I prefer the book by Wilks.
Known for his piercings and tattoos
The point von Srotch appears to be making in the article is that science is good at silencing the skeptics but doesn’t apply the same standards to silencing the extremists.
It’s a bit vague as he doesn’t give examples but I’m guessing he’s referring to those who say there will be runaway warming in the future and global warming will be the downfall of humanity.
I guess it’s in the nature of most scientists to simply ignore the silly claims that both sides make, but to come to the defence of the science when it’s under attack.
If the extremists were citing ‘proof’ that science had underestimated or misunderstood global warming then I suspect they would find themselves being put under pressure to validate their claims, in the same way the skeptics are.
The extremists don’t do this. They don’t produce fictitious reports in the same way the skeptics do, they don’t attempt to rewrite history or distort science to suit their own ends. Instead they make unfounded comments and exaggerate the effects of global warming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch
"Will climate science become discredited by extremists?"
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20140719205632AAm5Ape
