Quote: Timbo @ January 26 2011, 10:04 PM GMTFor Piers Corbyn, the weather forecaster who refuses to share his methodology see: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/06/piers_corbyn.php for an interesting discussion.
it is more difficult to find an objective discussion of Bastardi as his name brings up pages and pages of rehashed Joe Bastardi press releases - he clearly has no problem finding an outlet for his views; but this is interesting: http://climateprogress.org/2010/03/01/accuweather's-joe-bastardi-admits-earth-continues-warmest-winter-since-satellite-measurements-started-and-feb-should-be-warmest-on-record/
Even on my cursory reading (I do have a life) what comes across clearly is that these are marginal and rather blustering figures whose rhetoric runs ahead of the evidence. They are commercial weather forecasters who have a vested interest in putting the best possible spin on their results; this is not quite the same thing as an objective analysis of the data. Just because someone claims to be gaining the scientific higher ground this does not necessarily make it so.
I would actually sleep rather better in my bed if someone could disprove global warming, I could feel less guilty and more optimistic, but that does not mean that I am inclined to seek solace from any snake oil salesman.
The point is that Delingpole is not a scientist - he is a journalist who choses to believe the sceptics rather the concensus. Hence the line of questioning - why does he chose not to take scientific advice on this issue when he would if it was his own health at stake.
I do agree up to a point which is what I found so pointless about Brooker's diatribe. Conflating crime with health and safety and natural catastrophe as if they all demand the same response seems just lazy. There is a difference between nannying and scaremongering, and there is a difference between personal responsibility for one's own safety and personal responsibility for a problem demanding concerted public action.
Delingpole is a right wing fool who doesn't understand science and that's why they picked him to come on rather then a true scientist with a real hypothesis to pose.
I totally disagree. The news should not scaremonger on any topic by deliberately focusing on the worst possible out of a set of predictions. They should give us the howl story then trust us as adults to judge whether we should act, to not do that would be elitist.
Quote: Aaron @ January 26 2011, 10:14 PM GMTBack on topic please. This is not the place to discuss climate change.
I think you're missing the point. We're debating weather Brooker's a hypocrite or not and there's no way to do that without going onto other topics.
