Skepticgate: Revealing Climate Denialists for What They Are

cepheus

grahamc2003 wrote: »

feel you'll eventually reassess over the coming years as the central theories of man made global warming, or cooling for that matter, are viewed with more scepticism by both proper scientists and the general public, as I sense is currently happening.

If you examine the evidence you will find the opposite is true, scientists seem to be continually underestimating AGW. The IPCC AR4 was out of date on the date it was published not taking full account of feedback effects.

To simply accept man causes climate change to any non-trivial degree (which is an extremenly bold scientific postulate) on the scientific evidence available is the domain of the paradoxical non-sceptical scientist, driven at the highest level by politics, not science.

Deniers always cry wolf (scepticism) to cast doubt purely for political purposes since they either are right wing politicians or are working for right wing politicians. Anthropogenic climate change has been subject to scepticism for 200 years and passed all these tests within reason. Waiting of 100% certainty before acting, isn't practical for anything. We are as near 100% as makes little difference, decisions have to be taken on the evidence and risk analysis presented by the experts. You are either confused how applied science works or perhaps using rhetoric to confuse others? Are you 100% that man landed on the moon?

Here are what the real climate experts believe

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.

Examining the scientific consensus on climate change

Cardew

Cepheus,

Even, for the sake of argument, accepting that you are correct in all your global warming propaganda, it is a leap of faith to attribute that warming to Homo sapiens.

That said you are not lacking in Faith.

There is but one God!

cepheus

I need a leap of faith to believe you are not maliciously trolling, are you?

If you wish to deny science at least do it somewhere harmless such as here

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

zeupater

cepheus wrote: »

I need a leap of faith to believe you are not maliciously trolling, are you?

If you wish to deny science at least do it somewhere harmless such as here

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

Hi

I really can't understand why someone would start a discussion thread then immediately pour scorn over anyone who takes a contrary view of any kind .... seems to be a very extremist position to take so early in a discussion .....

Mind you, did anyone else notice that the CET database shows January as being colder than average, yet again. I know that a month of data describes weather as opposed to climate, but then again, at some time climate data must reflect the weather .....

Despite last year's CET temperature being extremely low, does anyone else agree that this year's CET temperature will likely be lower than the average for the last 5 years ?

Regards
Z

Cardew

cepheus wrote: »

I need a leap of faith to believe you are not maliciously trolling, are you?

To question cepheus's Faith equals trolling?

You frankly are rude and bigoted in equal measure!

I will say again, I have no idea about global warming(or climate change as it is called in an attempt to back both horses) or Homo sapien's contribution to any climate change or the likely effect of any change.

Neither have you!

rhiwfield

I consider global warming to be happening with a strong probability that it is attributable to human activity.

Can I be a#@!d to have a discussion as to why my views are at odds with those of "deniers", not really.

Could my considered opinion be wrong. Unlikely, but possible.

And could it be changed? Only by evidence and certainly not by the rhetoric of fringe groups and oil funded foundations.

Mind, there are zealots inhabitating the denial and the warmist camps, a plague on both their houses!

A._Badger

rhiwfield wrote: »

I consider global warming to be happening with a strong probability that it is attributable to human activity.

Can I be a#@!d to have a discussion as to why my views are at odds with those of "deniers", not really.

Could my considered opinion be wrong. Unlikely, but possible.

And could it be changed? Only by evidence and certainly not by the rhetoric of fringe groups and oil funded foundations.

Mind, there are zealots inhabitating the denial and the warmist camps, a plague on both their houses!

Very reasonable, but I'm troubled by that 'oil funded foundations', line.

It seems to me that by far the biggest money today is actually backing the AGW cause. And that big money very often comes from giant corporations - including one of the biggest of them all, GE.

That is why I posted the link to the American Thinker article, which delves into the genesis of this claim and reaches some very interesting conclusions.

The immediate attempt to rubbish the source, rather than address the issue, makes it, for me, more, rather than less, likely to be believable.

grahamc2003

I consider global warming to be happening with a strong probability that it is attributable to human activity.


And could it be changed? Only by evidence and certainly not by the rhetoric of fringe groups and oil funded foundations.


You can really hold whatever opinions you want (obviously). But your reasoning isn't scientific.

The scientific default is the null hypothesis, requiring powerful evidence for acceptance of the proposed hypothesis (that is why scientists are sceptical of necessity).

You are simply accepting the hypothesis of man made global warming, and requiring proof of the null hypothesis. While you are free to do that, it is not a position based on accepted scientific methods.

Could my considered opinion be wrong. Unlikely, but possible.

........ Even if you say so yourself! I'd say such a statement would be pretty arrogant even from those proper scientists at the forefront of climate science research. It's probably the most logical position that the climate is one of those systems which is, and will probably always be, of such complexity beyond the intellectual capability of man.

Volcano

Cepheus,

Daily Mail readers and the "older, less educated males..." aside, it's generally becoming more accepted that AGW is happening and (in the absence of any credible alternatives) human activity is the most likely cause.

With the remaining skeptics in their death throes, it's probably a tad unseemly to stick the boot in or "jump on their graves singing hallelujah" or even say "we told you so".

I understand your exhuberence in posting, but in the absence of factual retorts, you're only ever going to get ad hominem attacks in return, which I'm guessing was never your initial intention and you can't argue against a fallacious viewpoint.

cepheus

Volcano wrote: »

Cepheus,

Daily Mail readers and the "older, less educated males..." aside, it's generally becoming more accepted that AGW is happening and (in the absence of any credible alternatives) human activity is the most likely cause.

With the remaining skeptics in their death throes, it's probably a tad unseemly to stick the boot in or "jump on their graves singing hallelujah" or even say "we told you so".

I understand your exhuberence in posting, but in the absence of factual retorts, you're only ever going to get ad hominem attacks in return, which I'm guessing was never your initial intention and you can't argue against a fallacious viewpoint.

Volcano. Why do you think the Sceptics and Deniers are in their death throes?

This is (supposed) to be an environmental related board. Now look how many Deniers have replied and how many supporters of the scientific consensus. Can you can imagine what it is like on a Denier board or even a neutral one? These people gain confidence from one anothers political position, its no good posting evidence.

Have you read the OP article? The whole point is that Deniers created a fictitious scandal which went viral to damage the political motivation to do anything at Copenhagen (that is why it was released then)

Now, the tables have turned, we have proof of a real scandal, one of their misinformers telling lies about his funding to congress. This is a bit like libel, and is most definitely criminal.

These people have deliberately distorted and lied without any morals for the past two decades, gaining media victory after victory due to distortion and scientific ignorance of the audience. The right wing media have shamelessly disseminated misinformation and encouraged attacks on scientists, claiming 'free speech'. Well now they are caught, and you say, "keep this quiet?"

I have to say, we are acting like sheep to the slaughter, divided we are weak. Scientific evidence is of limited use in politics. We need to use the full array of measures available such as the Media and soundbites such as ".....gate" . These dumbed down methods appeal to the 1/3 of society which vote off rhetoric and impressions, the 1/3 which is enough to stop action.

Have you no idea of the scale this has been happening?

http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-cover-up

http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/