There is an interesting debate going on in the blog sphere right now over a draft paper written by Alan Carlin of the EPA. It’s critical of the IPCC report and says that the EPA should do more research before making any major decisions. The real debate comes in whether or not the paper was supressed for political reasons. You can read the draft report (Update: fixed the link) here and read some of the commentary here.

What I find most interesting is how bi-polar the debate is. It’s either “Suppression by the socialist govt” or “Not worthing reading because it’s by some physics hack with an economics degree”.  I’ve read the paper and I think the guy makes some good points, but that’s my opinion.

Here’s what happens when a person comments on the RealClimate blog (a thouroughly pro AGW blog). Here’s the whole comment stream if you want to go to the site and check it out or I’ll copy a few of the comments below. Remember, this blog is by climatologists “Gavin Schmidt” of Nasa Goddard , Michael Mann of the Hockey Stick Graph, and several other Climate folks.

  1. Richard H. Says:
    26 June 2009 at 4:1 PM I’m confused by all of the name calling and nastiness. Okay, you don’t like the guys opinions. You don’t like that he questions things you think shouldn’t be questioned. Is it really necessary or professional to start calling people names and trying to stain their character because you don’t agree with their opinions?

    Less opinion, more scientific process.

  1. Jim Eager Says:
    26 June 2009 at 4:1 PM “Less opinion, more scientific process.”

    Gee, that would certainly be refreshing. If only the deniers & liars would give it a try.

  2. SecularAnimist Says:
    26 June 2009 at 5:1 PM Richard H. wrote: “Okay, you don’t like the guys opinions. You don’t like that he questions things you think shouldn’t be questioned. Is it really necessary or professional to start calling people names and trying to stain their character because you don’t agree with their opinions?”

    Is it really necessary for you to grossly and blatantly misrepresent what Gavin wrote, right here on a comment thread where every reader can easily see what he actually wrote and just as easily see that you are lying about it? Isn’t that a rather silly thing to do?

    Perhaps you should save your lies about what Gavin wrote for some “right wing” blog where the readers won’t bother to check what he actually wrote.

  3. Richard H. Says:
    26 June 2009 at 5:1 PM SecularAnimist, It’s interesting that you attack my statement asking why it’s necessary to name call and slander when it should be a scientific debate by calling me a liar and saying I’m misrepresenting things.

    It’s kind of my point.

    I’m not trying to start a flame war. In fact the opposite is true. People have different opinions, so what. Relax, state your opinions, listen to the other guys, debate things and call it good. There are going to be differences of opinions, it’s the way the world works. Reaching a compromise and basing decisions on those mutually agreed compromises is the way things need to get done.

    It’s also the scientific way. Look at observations, make up theories, test theories against observations and experimentation, adjust theory, test, etc etc.

    Picking up stones and throwing them at each other helps no one in the long run except maybe the rock seller.

I’m not sure why I tried. It’s like arguing religion. There will be no winners, only losers.

Advertisements