Comments

  1. Report this comment

    Julius St Swithin said:

    As you correctly state “A very large proportion of the commentary on climate science is not actually from working scientists, it is from others who have a political rather than scientific interest. “ This, of course, applies to both sides of the debate. Blogs of all persuasions have participants who cheer any contribution which supports their belief without too much concern for the accuracy of the science behind it.

    The situation is complicated by the fact that climate science is heavily politicised which means that climate scientists are reluctant to openly criticise fellow scientists or politicians who misrepresent their science but support their cause.

    There are a few sites where balanced debate is possible – judithcurry.com is a good example – and even sites likes realclimate.org seems to be more open to debate than it was in the past. To encourage debate around the facts I and a colleague have set up site http://www.climatedata.info which present a large range of climate data in a fairly accessible way.

  2. Report this comment

    John Samuel said:

    That may well be the first and last time I hear of Judith Curry’s blog representing balanced debate.

    The false equivalence of “applies to both sides of the debate” gives the game away. You’re as bad as us isn’t an argument – and isn’t true either.

Comments are closed.