RE: Bad Science Almost Imposing Restrictive Laws
January 17, 2013 at 3:08 am
(This post was last modified: January 17, 2013 at 3:12 am by Aractus.)
Oh dear...
Most climate scientists are moderate, normal, everyday hard working honest scientists. You have a few like Mann who are clearly alarmists. You have other so-called scientists who are not climate-scientists who are also alarmists, like say Tim Flannery. Then you have political people who are alarmists, the most obvious example of this is he that profits the most for Global Warming Alarmism, and that would be Al Gore.
AGW is as widely held and accepted among scientists (and I know this because I know scientists) as the theory of Evolution and the Big Bang theory. So denying AGW is as "extreme" as denying Evolution or the BB. I myself do not deny AGW - I'm a sceptic. The increased level of CO2 is partially attributable to human activity, and anthropogenic CO2, methane, and black carbon levels should have some effect on the environment. But I don't believe the effect would be measurable, and that it only amounts to a small fraction of current climate change.
Do me a favour and distance yourself from me and the rest of the intelligent sceptics, thanks.
It's about the only thing you've said that isn't total bullshit.
(January 16, 2013 at 11:53 am)Sciworks Wrote: We shouldn't be called skeptics or deniers, those are just labels religious groups use for heretics.Firstly, it has nothing to do with religion. I don't mind being called an AGW sceptic, that's different from "climate change denier", and I'm more than happy to call myself an AGW sceptic. If that "label" makes you uncomfortable, maybe it's you who holds the extreme view.
Quote:It's like calling someone a religious skeptic, that may have worked in the 1800s but now most people think religious believers are just gullible.Again, no it isn't, science is different to religion, they cannot be approached the same way. Climate denial is typically associated with conspiracy theories, not with religion.
Quote:If it wasn't for the amount of gullible people, the governments wouldn't be able to push AGW.Wrong again. If it wasn't for the IPCC and climate scientists who are alarmists and take their message over the top, there would be no cause for alarm. If it wasn't that being a climate scientist is most profitable to you when you produce positive results, and that people have agendas to push, it wouldn't be cause for alarm.
Quote:The climate scientists should be labelled Climate Priests or Bad Scientists :-)Absolutely wrong.
Most climate scientists are moderate, normal, everyday hard working honest scientists. You have a few like Mann who are clearly alarmists. You have other so-called scientists who are not climate-scientists who are also alarmists, like say Tim Flannery. Then you have political people who are alarmists, the most obvious example of this is he that profits the most for Global Warming Alarmism, and that would be Al Gore.
AGW is as widely held and accepted among scientists (and I know this because I know scientists) as the theory of Evolution and the Big Bang theory. So denying AGW is as "extreme" as denying Evolution or the BB. I myself do not deny AGW - I'm a sceptic. The increased level of CO2 is partially attributable to human activity, and anthropogenic CO2, methane, and black carbon levels should have some effect on the environment. But I don't believe the effect would be measurable, and that it only amounts to a small fraction of current climate change.
(January 16, 2013 at 12:08 pm)Minimalist Wrote:Min, that's a poor example. Melting ice tells you nothing to do with climate trends (even local ones), all they tell you is that the present climate is unable to sustain what some distant past climate was; and that would take you back to the mini-ice age. In other words, should our climate remain completely steady for the next 100 years, we'd expect a certain amount of ice at Greenland to melt away. We'd only expect it to stay the same if climate cooling occurred and produced a climate over Greenland able to sustain its present ice levels.
![[Image: gu_ice_extension-01.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=image.guardian.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FObserver%2FPix%2Fpictures%2F2012%2F08%2F11%2Fgu_ice_extension-01.jpg)
(January 16, 2013 at 8:04 pm)Sciworks Wrote: Yeh - blah blah Global Warming blah blah Climate Change blah blah......Yeah as if you know anything.
Do me a favour and distance yourself from me and the rest of the intelligent sceptics, thanks.
Quote:But not one mention about the original post!Sea level rise doesn't correlate, at all, to climate change. Everyone knows this, end of discussion. Happy now?
It's about the only thing you've said that isn't total bullshit.
