James Randi says, of global warming, I Am Not “Denying” Anything. PZ is not entirely sanguine about it. But James wants to give Randi a pass.
Anybody want to buy a goat?
Well Randi accepted major flaws in his post pointed out by his associate Phil Plait. He then demonstrated that he still does not understand global warming by talking about heating up the earth by burning trees.
Randi should be proud. He has been working to make people skeptical for years, in this little episode he is (all be it not deliberately)showing just how successful he has been.
Now Greg didn’t I say something in one of your earlier blogs about how on Randi’s blog the global warming stuff never came to s satisfactory conclusion? I might be wrong, it may be beginning to happen, not quite there yet, but getting closer.
Is it on fire?
This is a test. This is only a test. No ozone and no goat was harmed while this test was being performed. The test is over. Go on about your business.
I would also like a goat, provided it is ON FIRE.
While I respect Randi for his skeptical work, he dropped the ball in a major, major way here, and IMHO he hasn’t quite acknowledged & internalized it all. His age, illness, & fatigue make me more likely to go easy on him, but I’m unsatisfied that he understands precisely why so many of us are disappointed in his original statement or response.
It seems to me that the problem with Randi’s problem with climate change is not that he is a non-scientist offering his opinion on a scientific matter. After all, what percentage of us, even if we are scientists, understands the whole of the data that support the conclusion that the climate is warming because of humans. It is that he doesn’t simply say: I believe the climate is warming due to people BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE OVERWHELMING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS IS.
I understand there are 8 planets and that there are many galaxies and that particular microorganisms cause particular diseases not because I can see these things for myself but because scientists tell me it is so. Is Randi off the hook on AGW because, after all, he is not a climate scientist? No, he’s on a much bigger, sharper hook because he is essentially saying, “I don’t believe in science.” Why else would someone – who we can all agree did not say what he did about AGW because he sees something different in the data – say that he has his doubts about it unless he simply doesn’t respect science enough to take the consensus at its word?
Current ye@r *
Leave this field empty
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
Notify me of new posts by email.
Notify me of followup comments via E-Mail.