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 > What exactly do 98% of climate researchers believe? > Comments

What exactly do 98% of climate researchers believe? : Comments

By Barry York, published 20/10/2014

Politicians, climate activists and influential Hollywood celebrities are misusing the 98% figure derived from studies to justify an alarmist point of view.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. 12
  13. All
SM,

"..."The science is settled" could only come from idiots with no knowledge of science..."

The "only" commentators who repeat ad nauseam "the science is settled" (as some sort of rooly clever condemnation) are the so-called "skeptics".

You know that, don't you?
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 21 October 2014 1:49:17 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
Curmudgeon:
The solar thermal arrays that I've studied and presented as examples, do not exist in Australia, [people (denialists) just like you, wouldn't stand for anything as patently economically sensible,] but rather exist in Arizona, and or California!
You really do need to lift your head out of that dark, warm and comfortable place you've put it, and take an honest to goodness look around.
If only to see what other people are doing or have already done!
Or that the information I've provided is inherently correct!
Just because you haven't personally seen it, or is not in Australia, doesn't mean it doesn't exist!
I mean, I live way inland and can't actually see the ocean!
Relying on your can't see it out here logic!?
Does that mean there isn't one!?
Moreover, it doesn't help any of your patently spurious arguments, if you just won't look!
And if you but did just that much, you might finally begin to understand; you're wrong on man-made climate change, and what others using the brains they were born with, are doing about it!
As opposed to just parroting the endless denials of the fossil fuel industry!
Got shares or a job in the industry, have we?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Wednesday, 22 October 2014 12:15:19 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
P,

My recollections differ from yours. I remember quite a few left whingers using similar words to claim that the science was settled. It is also counter intuitive for skeptics to claim that the science is settled as they are rubbishing it.

My experience is the left whingers are generally technically and economically weak and when they sense a winner they regurgitate a concept with no care nor understanding of the caveats that underlie each concept.

The two prime examples are

1 that it is generally agreed that humans have contributed to global warming. This, however, does not imply that all scientists agree with the doomsday predictions regularly issued by those of a green hue.

2 A carbon price is the most efficient way of reducing emissions. This is true if the carbon price is universal, otherwise, production simply moves from high cost areas to low areas, sometimes with a net increase.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 23 October 2014 8:14:20 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
SM,

".... I remember quite a few left whingers using similar words to claim that the science was settled. It is also counter intuitive for skeptics to claim that the science is settled as they are rubbishing it."

"Scientists" don't say "the science is settled".

"Skeptics" repeatedly spout that scientists say "the science is settled".....so when it's an accusation fired at others, it's not "counter intuitive.

That's pretty much the only time you hear that phrase - the overwhelming majority of times in any case.

If you had the time to check every reference to that phrase on a forum like OLO, you'd find that it is the "skeptics" accusing scientists of it that utter it - not the scientists or their defenders.

Scientists are "real skeptics" - they have to be.
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 23 October 2014 8:31:02 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
It is all a bit of conundrum really.
One thing that has been pointed out recently is that the ERoEI of all
the alternative energy systems are very poor when looked at from construction
though to maintenance etc.
The only way in which the energy works out is if the fossil fuels are used to
construct the the alternative energy regime.
All this disbursement waffle we read about is conterproductive and will result in a total energy failure.

We have a choice, use fossil energy flatout to build the new energy hardware or get candles.
It really is that simple.
Posted by Bazz, Thursday, 23 October 2014 12:29:00 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
P,

The first to use this term was Al Gore in pushing the case.

http://www.thescienceisstillsettled.com/

And as we both agree, the science is far from settled.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 23 October 2014 3:10:25 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. 12
  13. All

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