On June 25, Greg Laden posted an update to his post slamming NY Times journalist/blogger Andrew Revkin for sleeping with the enemy–giving aid and comfort to the enemy–being a Klimate Kwisling, a traitor to the cause. Yeah, Laden’s nuttier than a fruitcake.
Laden had opined that there was zero room for debate on climate science.
His update was a riposte to Revkin’s reply to him. Revkin had written: ““Zero room.” That’s scientific.”
To which Laden replied
“Yes, it is. There is zero room for debate when an issue has been pretty much settled. In science debate can come up anywhere, you never know, but for all practical purposes we do not debate if the Earth is hollow or solid or flat or round, or that germs cause many diseases, or that frogs reproduce as most other tetrapods do rather then spontaneously emerging from mud.” He later continued, “So to repeat my original post, I said “… there is absolutely zero room for considering the reality of climate change or its severity.”
Ya know… if that’s really the case then why is Tamino debating (and losing to) Judith Curry on the… ummm, severity of climate change?
Why is Adrew Dessler debating Richard Lindzen on sensitivity and the Iris Effect? They’ve done so publicly, in the peer-reviewed literature and in the blogosphere.
Why is And Then There’s Physics debating
Sharapova Zharkova (think I’ve been following a little tooo much tennis? Thanks ATTP for the correction.) on… um… the severity of climate change?
Oh, wait–here’s Greg Laden in the comments section of the post saying there’s no debate… “As stated, there is debate over climate sensitivity, and no one expects the value to converge until it converges … ”