The Forum > Article Comments > Scientific certainty in an uncertain world > Comments
Scientific certainty in an uncertain world : Comments
By Kellie Tranter, published 24/3/2010Scientists aren’t scare-mongering when, almost unanimously, they describe the challenges we face with climate change.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Page 5
- 6
-
- All
Please don't assume the way you think is common to everyone.
So if lots of scientists say a particular thing, and only a few say something different, the majority has it?
That's not science, that's politics, science is not a democracy.
If the science was so clear, if there were no doubts Ken, there would be no scepticism, so it's not the skeptics "fault", its the scientists fault if it is anyones for not having clear proof of CO2 raising temperature in recent times - don't shift the blame like this, it is not supportable - prove the case.
BTW - How many scientists actually research the CAUSES of Climate Change and how many research the EFFECTS?
Lots of scientists now line up from other areas to attach the words "and the effects of climate change" to get funding.
So of those thousands of scientists you claim all say the science is clear, how many are directly involved and how many indirectly?
Have a look at the IPCC figures on all those scientists.
Ken and vk3auu are both environmentalists and so relate AGW to their belief systems, you appear not to have questioned the premise of the claims - there are many about AGW, some are just complete BS, few actual climate scientists point this out - if they were honest they would point out when people are just scaremongering and doom saying - by not commenting, they include themselves in that side of the debate that uses such tactics.
spindoc - I have always separated AGW from CC, a lot of people are evangelical about the environment, AGW is something they can join up to with like minded people against the people they believe "bad" - see how often skeptics are accused of being polluters, right wingers and somehow being paid for being skeptics.
What has that to do with the debate about AGW and CO2?