In one of his periodic diatribes against science, scientists and any risk analyst who thinks that 95% certainty is enough to cause concern about global warming, the National Postโs Peter Foster has attacked Canadian scientist Andrew Weaver โ using an argument that the newspaper has admitted, twice before, is flat-out untrue.
So, rude as it is to ask, we have to wonder if Mr. Foster is
a) an incredibly slow learner;
b) not a frequent reader of his newspaperโs โCorrectionsโ feature;
c) so ideologically blinded that evidence just doesnโt matter to him; or
d) on the take?
There is, perhaps, a fifth answer, which to some degree gathers up some of the other four. The denial team leaders at the National Post โ Peter Foster, Terence Corcoran, Lorne Gunter, Lawrence Solomon โ have exhausted themselves shouting into the wind on this issue. They have spent their credibility and they have left themselves no graceful line of retreat. In fact, if any one of them now stood up and admitted that the science explaining anthropogenic global warming is overwhelming, they would become a laughingstock in their own narrow-minded community. Clearly, nearing the end of their fading careers โ at their fading newspaper โ they canโt take the strain.
In this instance, Fosterโs actual attack on Weaver is not even that compelling. Foster says the University of Victoria scientist โ one of the most frequently published and widely respected climate modellers in the world โ โunleashed a diatribe against the research of Ross McKitrick and Stephen McIntyre, who inconveniently exploded the IPCCโs alarmist โhockey stickโ graph.โ
Well, as the Post has been forced to admit before, Weaver did no such thing. Though many others have and to good effect. Go to RealClimate.org and search โMcKitrick,โ โMcIntyreโ or โhockey stickโ and youโll find pages of criticism, pretty much all of it well taken.
Foster also says that โMr. Weaver has even suggested that it is dangerous to allow skeptics a voice in scientific debate.โ
First of all, thatโs โDr. Weaverโ โ a relevant honorific that sets an esteemed Canada Research Chair apart from, say, a business writer with no expertise whatever in science. Second, and again, Weaver has suggested no such thing. As he says himself, โThis statement makes no sense since by definition, real scientists are skeptics. Being skeptical is precisely how one advances science.โ
Need it be said: Being stubborn, blind, sloppy and immune to evidence is less helpful.
PS
For strenuous determination to ignore all science and common sense, you canโt beat Terence Corcoranโs climate update in todayโs paper, also attacking Andrew Weaver (why do they hate him so?).
Corcoran argues that an outbreak of winter weather in Toronto suggests that the entire theory of global warming is about to collapse. And he advertises the quibble-fest coming up this weekend at the International Conference on Climate Change. Check out the scientific credentials in this mob of โexpertsโ and then think about the old aphorism: โbirds of a feather โฆ.โ
Subscribe to our newsletter
Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts