Paul Burtwistle writes:
Last night I watched an item on Channel 9’s 60 minutes here in Australia which covered Dr Stefan Harrison of Exeter University in the UK and his work studying the Exploradores glacier in Patagonia, Argentina.
The story contained an alarmist view regarding the sudden increase in the rate at which the glacier is receding over the last 10-20 years. The documentary does explain that the glacier has retreated a lot over the last 20,000 years but that the rate of decrease is up to 50 times greater in the last 10-20 years that it was 500 years ago and this is all due to AGW (at 5 mins 26 seconds in to “Wild Patagonia part 2″).
At 5 minutes 40 seconds in to the item Dr Harrison asked about climate skeptics and he goes on to say that they are not worth debating their viewpoint as it’s “like mud wrestling with pigs. Firstly you get covered in mud and secondly, the pig loves it” he then goes on to say he won’t debate skeptics because geographers don’t debate with people who think the world is flat and biologists don’t debate with people who think evolution isn’t happening or that the world is only 6000 years old.
You can view the whole article here (2 x 8 minute items) – http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/stories/8834229/wild-patagonia-the-glaciers-that-hold-a-dire-warning-for-earths-future .
The two articles are Wild Patagonia 1 & 2. I think some attention should be drawn to this appalling piece and I’ve already written to Channel 9 to voice my disapproval.
==========================================================
Huh, I don’t know of ANY climate skeptic who thinks the world is flat or that the Earth is only 6000 years old. I wonder where he gets his information…The Daily Kos perhaps?
When i attain my Phd ,grow ,a beard and apply for grants it will be for the study of gambling and girls of ill repute in Macau . Hell with clamoring around a mountain glacier.
He must have run out of Visine before that picture was taken! Step away from the bong.
Just wait. Their next step will be to list ice as an endangered species. What is weird about that is many people here are nodding their head as if that listing is a real possibility!
ConfusedPhoton (1st comment) says “Dr Stephan Harrison does not debate with sceptics because he is a coward.“.
Dr Stephan Harrison says “geographers don’t debate with people who think the world is flat“.
So, Dr Stephan Harrison, is the definitely non-cowardly physicist in this debate ..
http://static.astronomija.co.rs/razno/multimedia/tvastronmija/Flat_Earth/Falt_Earth.htm
.. wrong to stand up for science?
Actually, astronomers are more than happy to debate flat-earth critics. Likewise, evolutionists and Astrophysicists are more than happy to debate Intelligent Design or Young Earth creationists. They have in the past, with decisively conclusive results. Remember the Scopes Trial and the national debate that followed? Or more recent versions of the same thing. Going back to Galileo, scientists have been thrilled to engage in public debates about the great issues of the day, so long as there’ no threat of violence or imprisonment.
I mean, honestly, why wouldn’t you want to debate people you were guaranteed to win against, because the evidence on your side was so overwhelming and undeniable? Unless, just maybe, it isn’t.
Dr. Stephan, you are right. We love to wrestle and you do not. Furthermore, if we are going to cast insults, from your picture it appears you had yet another late night last night…
Par for the course here in the Australian MSM. All channels vary from mildly pro-AGW, channel 7, 9 and 10 to strongly pro-AGW, taxpayer funded ABC and SBS.
“M Simon says:
April 28, 2014 at 2:49 pm”
Given that there is only a little as ~6% difference in DNA benween humans and orangutangs, I’d say very little.
Part II @7:50 Harrison: “So, you could argue that the glaciers won’t grow back while humans are on the planet, and won’t start regrowing or readvancing until we leave.” Why is almost every global warming alarmist also a misanthrope?
The argument in the last sentence is spurious: the dodgy Prof. means that biologists wouldn’t argue with people who flatly deny a Theory which has stood the test of two centuries and geographers won’t waste time arguing a theory which has been universally accepted for the best part of 400 years.
He hasn’t said that Climate Skeptics believe in those two fallacious denialist positions, but he is claiming that the views they hold on ‘global warming’ are analagous.
It is that latter claim which is utterly ridiculous………
REPLY: Not really, that thinking is exactly what the prof is insinuating
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/08/03/pachauri-skeptics-are-flat-earthers/
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070804074519AAS9g1U
– Anthony
April 28, 2014 at 6:49 am | Steve McIntyre says:
———-
His comments at CA diminished after Climategate, attenuating to none as resentfulness grew among the activist community as they recognised the potential damage to their financial pig trough.
April 28, 2014 at 5:19 pm | george e. smith says:
Apparently. She was terribly unattractive but he still had a go at the academic gentlemen’s club.
He ducks like a quack.
“Debating skeptics is like mud wrestling with pigs”
I guess someone who likes wrestling theoretical chimeras (CAGW) might not like getting their hands dirty with a real animal.
Correction:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/28/exeter-university-prof-debating-skeptics-is-like-mud-wrestling-with-pigs/#comment-1623869
—–
“What can you show a sceptic? A graph of rising co2 and temperature? I could show you a graph showing rising temperature and an ice age.”
—–
What can you show a sceptic? A graph of rising co2 and temperature? I could show you a graph showing rising Co2 and an ice age.
—–
Dr Stefan Harrison of Exeter University
Write to his university and complain everybody. He should not be allowed an easy ride on this.
Make it clear that we will slag off Exeter at every opportunity to everyone we know unless he publicly apologises.
Wonder if he knows Lew?. They could compare notes on cognitive dissonance and how to suppress it whilst standing in line at the public teat dispensary.
He calls skeptics pigs? Looks like he just came off a three day crack bender….
Re: dbstealey says: April 28, 2014 at 10:47 am
“Your comment is so cryptic it is worthy of Mosher.”
Should I take that as a compliment?
“Whatever your comment/link means, I don’t understand it.”
Let me elucidate. On the thread I linked to I was called all manner of unpleasant names and my ultimate response was “snipped” in its entirety. Meanwhile @mod claims “WUWT is one of the most open site anywhere.”
Then I politely ask Anthony if he can provide a link to some data he graphed. My humble enquiry is ignored.
Q.E.D?
A Different Simile:
Debating the Warmists is like debating those religious who believe they are divinely inspired. But at least the religious base their argument upon faith, not bad data. Much better to believe that God told me than that models, which have been disproven, told me. Right or wrong, the true believer is just that, not a charlatan such as Dr Harrison.
At the root this statement is much funnier than you’d expect: Debating skeptics and mud wrestling pigs both occur in an environment in which the competition is in its home territory.
Pigs know mud.
Skeptics know science.
So why would a global warmist lose to a scientist? Oh, right!
I’m sure there are a lot of very nice geographers but this anachronistic discipline ran out of work when the earth was basically mapped (Geo- earth, grapher- drawer) and today we map it several times a day. It was in its heyday when Alchemy was in its. I remember as a schoolboy a long time ago that, having refused to die, it desperately took up things like coffee grows in Brazil and corned beef comes from Argentina. Now they are drawing the atmosphere! If one is looking for an example of evolution, this cling-on may be our best example. Geology developed because of discovery of the history of the earth recorded in rocks, minerals, fossils, sedimentary, igneous and metamorphic rocks and a host of other features (e.g. its usefulness in locating resources). Geography encroaches on geology as the star, but the star has a number of inconvenient aspects – the need to know chemistry, physics and mathematics, so they stay apart to a large degree.
A sign that CAGW is not a science is its flexibility in incorporating everyone as experts, including psychologists, sociologists, philosophers, geographers, and even chemists who apparently like to dabble in Alchemy. A geologist on the same mission to Patagonia would gather data, totally unknown to a geographer (seismicity, 10Be distribution, micro-gravity data, stream flow, previous ice and water levels, dating of morrains…)
Patrick says:
“Given that there is only a little as ~6% difference in DNA benween humans and orangutangs, I’d say very little.”
Even more interesting, cats about 10% and fruit flies about 40% different from people.
Steve McIntyre says:
April 28, 2014 at 6:49 am
Harrison commented at Climate Audit between 2005 and 2011
Thanks for this clarification, this changes the picture I had about Mr Harrison.
He is no confused theoretician, who in his ivory tower did not heard the skeptic arguments, but rather a person who tried to argue and failed, as we know the scientific argument is not on the CAGW side.
So rather to recognize this, he hides willingly behind insults, justifying in this way why he is not debating the skeptics.
He pretty knows his arguments are bust, but enjoys the CAGW ride.
The CAGW theory has its good parts, it is an opportunity to see what people really are.
Both of his assertions, regarding geographers and biologists, are patently untrue. Such “debating” is called teaching, and many skilled geographers and biologists do it with relish. After all, few other than Harrison are born with a contemporary knowledge of geography and biology.
Looks like he could do with a good wash. Maybe he really has been mudwrestling a pig!
“Looks like he could do with a good wash. Maybe he really has been mudwrestling a pig!”
Poor pig.