More Global warming fibs are revealed

vivatifosi

moonrakerz wrote: »

Does that make what he has to say incorrect ??

My point wasn't that what he's saying is correct or incorrect, my point is that he doesn't declare his point of view. As I said in the following paragraph, you do need both points of view to get to the good science (it is also essential to avoid inaccurate groupthink), but failing to state your views on the subject to start with is so far from value-neutral, so IMHO could mislead the public.

moonrakerz

vivatifosi wrote: »

My point wasn't that what he's saying is correct or incorrect, my point is that he doesn't declare his point of view

You didn't seem to have much difficulty in deciding his "point of view" !

vivatifosi wrote:

Christopher Booker has a clear position as a global warming naysayer

vivatifosi

No I didn't, because I had read other articles by him. However read in isolation that is not clear.

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

I think the use of such phrases as expert debunking of the notorious "hockey stick" graph and lamely explained and acquitted of criminally damaging,
tend to give the impression that the writer is himself suffering from an inability to separate opinion from fact, a charge he levels at 'the other side' quite happily. But I have been taught to identify bias in documentation, not everyone has.

Cardew

Jojo_the_Tightfisted wrote: »

But I have been taught to identify bias in documentation, not everyone has.

On both sides of the argument?

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

Yes, thank you, on both sides of an argument.

magyar

Cardew wrote: »

The same lobby who are now Eco warriors have been the ones vehemently campaigned building nuclear generating plant - which would have solved the generating capacity problem.

You need to separate 'eco warriers' from those in the industry who are actually making renewables happen. I know of very few people in the industry who are anti-nuclear.