Idiotic Comments of the day - Leigh Dayton
In this article, however, Dayton goes further, portraying Geller as a gallant crusader, desperate to avoid the charge of alarmism, and defending the IPCC as more likely to downplay results than exaggerate:
As Geller says, that makes Lindzen different to other climate-change sceptics. Many vehement critics are retired from the field, never worked in it or seem indifferent to recent peer-reviewed research impinging on their area. This is a shame. If the planet is heating up rapidly and dangerously due to humanity's penchant for burning fossil fuels, policymakers and politicians need solid scientific information. Distraction by misinformed sceptics does not good public policy make.
That's a big "IF", Leigh, and to call sceptics an annoying distraction is offensive and misguided. Yeah, shut 'em up - close 'em down. Hey, the debate's over! The article is also just plain wrong in places:
Climate sceptics also commonly recycle inaccurate "facts". The myth that global warming peaked in 1998 is a case in point. Yes, 1998 was a global scorcher, thanks to a heat-inducing El Nino. But after a dip in 1999, data collected by NASA and Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research show an upward trend, despite year-to-year variations. To claim otherwise is incorrect.
NASA = GISS = James Hansen = fudged figures. Just look at the satellite record. Surface stations measure urbanisation, satellites don't - there has been no warming since 2001, and notable cooling in the last couple of years.
And finally, to suggest that scientists are going to cut their own funding by questioning the consensus is just idiotic. Follow the money. Many serious scientific journals have already made up their mind on climate change.
All in all, a well deserved winner.
Read it here.