Bad Science Almost Imposing Restrictive Laws

[Sciworks]

[Aractus]

fellow sceptic.

[Sciworks]

fellow sceptic.

We shouldn't be called skeptics or deniers, those are just labels religious groups use for heretics. 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.

If it wasn't for the amount of gullible people, the governments wouldn't be able to push AGW.

The climate scientists should be labelled Climate Priests or Bad Scientists :-)

[Minimalist]

[Sciworks]

[pocaracas]

[The Grand Nudger]

"Pushing" AGW isn't much of an issue. That human activities have a demonstrable effect on both local and global environmental circumstance and patterns is a demonstrable reality (the converse would be a free lunch scenario, we're not entertaining the notion of a free lunch, surely?). The consequence and severity of said effect is the area where you might find "pushing" to be a more adequate term.

[Mister Agenda]

That chart might support your point better if it didn't clearly show that the last 16 years averaged warmer than the previous 16 years. I'm not a fan of AGW, but I've been forced to accept that it has correctly identified a trend and most likely correctly identified a major cause of it. All scientific claims, especially of this import, should be treated skeptically. Skepticism doesn't mean 'don't accept as true, no matter what'. No one will be more pleased than me to find that GW isn't happening, but we've reached a point where it's the claims that it isn't real that have to be looked at skeptically. You can make a graph say almost anything if you get to pick the beginning and end points.

[pocaracas]

[Creed of Heresy]