The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Scientific certainty in an uncertain world > Comments

Scientific certainty in an uncertain world : Comments

By Kellie Tranter, published 24/3/2010

Scientists aren’t scare-mongering when, almost unanimously, they describe the challenges we face with climate change.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Ken - Who said Plimer and Monckton are right, you say they are wrong - fine, no problem. I've never claimed "anyone" is right, just that "I" am skeptical.

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?
Posted by rpg, Saturday, 27 March 2010 12:06:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rpg, that you have always “separated AGW from CC”, yes, I agree and I am supporting your position.

You ask <<What has that to do with the debate about AGW and CO2? >> The comments I made were directed at Ken and David and their efforts to re-bind AGW to CC because CC is now more widely accepted than AGW.

IMHO AGW and CC are not connected, we both agree on that. I was supporting your view, not attacking it.

Perhaps I was being too obtuse, you might wish to re read my post?

Regards.
Posted by spindoc, Saturday, 27 March 2010 3:08:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
VK3AUU

'Runner, I am still waiting for your reply to my questions about real science and scientists. I'm also not too sure about the scientists to whom you are referring in your last post. Please enlighten us.'

These are the scientist I am referring to in regard my last post

Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation." Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age." The Christian Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster Than Even Experts Expect," Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers "have begun to advance," "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool." Newsweek agreed ("The Cooling World," April 28, 1975) that meteorologists "are almost unanimous" that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that the New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said "may mark the return to another ice age." The Times (May 21, 1975) also said "a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable" now that it is "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950."

Just in case you did not read it the first time

'Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age." The Christian Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster Than Even Experts Expect," Aug. 27, 1974)'

Hopefully you are now enlightened by the climatologist who 'are agreed' in global cooling. Would you consider these real scientist?

Personally when taught this crap at school most could smell the rat. Unfortunately with global warming dogma and funding many can't.
Posted by runner, Saturday, 27 March 2010 3:28:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
spindoc, no I was saying, not very well obviously, what has "skeptics are accused of being polluters, right wingers and somehow being paid for being skeptics."

to do with the debate, other than to try to imply that anyone who doubts the AGW stance must be immediately and personally attacked.

The AGW believers show their form when they immediately and without provocation then start to accuse any skeptics of being aligned with Plimer, Caret and whomever else, as if that justifies their stance .. probably go to too many skeptic hate sites.

More and more AGW believers are now showing their true colors, that they are environmentalists first and AGW believers opportunistically because it lines up with their position.

I have no problem with better energy sources, helping others and generally trying to do things better, but I do not like this class war crap that anyone against AGW must be a right wing, rich, polluting anti green.

It puts me off the whole green/eco movement though, since their philosophy seems to be to attack anyone who disagrees - there is no compromise position for them.

What do they call it, the green halo syndrome, so you can look down your nose and sneer at others since you're green and better than them .. hmmm, sounds like religion doesn't it?
Posted by rpg, Saturday, 27 March 2010 4:08:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rpg, thanks for the clarification, thought we must have crossed some wires somewhere. I’m with you all the way.

A religion? Yes. It also bears all the “hallmarks” of post modernist deconstruction, break it into little bits and attack each bit separately on “moral” grounds.

Interesting that we’ve not had much press coverage on the French announcement that they have “canned” their ETS?
Posted by spindoc, Sunday, 28 March 2010 7:59:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I can not be certain of course, but the evidence is growing day by day that the great global warming swindle otherwise known as the scam of the century is about to be cast into the historical dustbin of forgotten and outrageous scares.

The question of the day; what will the doomsayers think up with next?
Posted by anti-green, Sunday, 28 March 2010 10:28:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy