If At First You Don't Succeed. . .
. . . Lie through your teeth.
Or, more specifically, commit perjury before congress.
From beachofdreams, a bit of a tale from a scientist regarding what happened to him during a debate:
In late 1998, I was asked to debate the well-known greenhouse skeptic Dr. Patrick Michaels of the University of Virginia. . . .
I agreed to participate in this debate with Dr. Michaels after learning that he had used (or misused) a figure of mine in testimony to the United States Congress. . . .
(W)hen Pat Michaels testified to congress in 1998 and showed our 1988 predictions (Fig. 1) he erased (data), and showed the result only for (one of three scenarios). He then argued that, since the real world temperature had not increased as fast as this model calculation (shown in the remaining data), the climate model was faulty and there was no basis for concern about climate change, specifically concluding that the Kyoto Protocol was "a useless appendage to an irrelevant treaty".
(Emphasis mine. -P.)
Below, I present the graph in question. It's clear the original predictions erased from the testimony provided enough of a spread to account for observed weather patterns.
The original illustration -- in testimony,
lines B and C had been erased
This is what many people do not understand about Global Warming skeptics. Many of these skeptics feel lies are perfectly acceptable in the battle against what is becoming more and more clearly a war of a vast amount of evidence verses well-entrenched and well-funded special interests.
Or, more specifically, commit perjury before congress.
From beachofdreams, a bit of a tale from a scientist regarding what happened to him during a debate:
In late 1998, I was asked to debate the well-known greenhouse skeptic Dr. Patrick Michaels of the University of Virginia. . . .
I agreed to participate in this debate with Dr. Michaels after learning that he had used (or misused) a figure of mine in testimony to the United States Congress. . . .
(W)hen Pat Michaels testified to congress in 1998 and showed our 1988 predictions (Fig. 1) he erased (data), and showed the result only for (one of three scenarios). He then argued that, since the real world temperature had not increased as fast as this model calculation (shown in the remaining data), the climate model was faulty and there was no basis for concern about climate change, specifically concluding that the Kyoto Protocol was "a useless appendage to an irrelevant treaty".
(Emphasis mine. -P.)
Below, I present the graph in question. It's clear the original predictions erased from the testimony provided enough of a spread to account for observed weather patterns.
The original illustration -- in testimony,
lines B and C had been erased
This is what many people do not understand about Global Warming skeptics. Many of these skeptics feel lies are perfectly acceptable in the battle against what is becoming more and more clearly a war of a vast amount of evidence verses well-entrenched and well-funded special interests.