You can usually rely on the Guardian’s tribe of AGW alarmists to write some amusing twaddle, but today Hickman is in danger of passing the parody singularity, disappearing over the event horizon and vanishing up his own black hole.
Apparently, those of us who are sceptical of his screeching, wailing, gnashing of teeth, doomsday predictions and sanctimonious preaching are much like believers in the Turin Shroud. In a confused piece he prattles on about how believers in the shroud do so despite the scientific evidence, and then switches horses mid stream and says that AGW “deniers” are much the same as we don’t “believe” in the science. A near avalanche of evidence, no less.
Er, but you don’t need to “believe” in science. Science is based upon evidence and scepticism is the default position. That near avalanche is not as robust as AGW believers would have us believe, despite the protestations of their high priests and inquisitors.
Funnily enough, despite the wittering about “peer review” (irrelevant if the peer is wrong, too) and consensus (it only takes one man to be proved right for the consensus to collapse), there is not one mention of Yamal. I mean, that’s scientific evidence, is it not?
Odd, that, isn’t it?
Louder the screams, the less likely I am to believe the priests of the Green religion.
The fallout over Yamal simply proves that tree ring data is a very poor temperature proxy.
As far as science is concerned, ‘belief’ has nothing to do with it. The whole ‘proof’ of man made climate change was based upon statistical studies derived from a very small data sample. Said ‘proof’ is now discredited. What’s not to get? Hickman, Monbiot, et al are raving idiots if they can’t accept their god is dead.
The climate changes. We have little or nothing to do with it. Now I’m sure there are more important things for real environmentalists to do, like reducing the amount of raw sewage pumped into the oceans.