...Interesting reading, looks well researched and may dampen the enthusiasm of those who believe that we are seeing "something terrible" is about to happen.
Thanks for the welcome Sails.
I hope I will be able to contribute something to the discussion of climate & weather. When I come to grips with the search mechanisms here, I will try to avoid posting on subjects that have been well covered already.
BEST?
We've dealt with the BEST nonsense bas.
Yeah. Just deny it and it will go away.
Same treatment as the remainder of the evidence.
I didn't have a position when I started discussing anthropogenic climate change on ASF; my early posts were all attempts to elicit information. But my experience over the years exactly parallels this, and I also thank (as I have already thanked Wayne) a handful of people here for provoking me to do my homework.After 2006, I took part in an internet discussion forum, initially adopting the role of agnostic on serious anthropogenic climate change, arguing with both extremes; let’s call them “alarmists and deniers”, for want of better labels. This experience was what eventually changed my mind on the seriousness of climate change and the idea that climate scientists had an alarmist bias. Every time I examined a denialist argument, a little research quickly convinced me that they were wrong; invariably their references were unreliable and their arguments incoherent. When it came to disagreeing with the alarmists, even if the worst outcomes they predicted were questionable and sometimes overstated, their overall case was coherent and based on solid references. Over a period of a few years, I drifted away from my lukewarmer stance. I can thank a handful of deniers for provoking me to do my homework, which helped me change my mind; but I don’t think I had any success in changing their minds.
Created on: January 16, 2008
Ted Koppel, the host for Nightline, whom Gore had approached, blamed Gore for profiling the scientists simply because they did not agree with his point of view. "There is some irony in the fact that Vice President Gore [is] resorting to political means to achieve what should ultimately be resolved on a purely scientific basis", Koppel is quoted as saying (Singer, 294). But the question is, was Gore really persecuting the opposing scientists, or was he trying to maintain the integrity of science? In the end, all this criticism only goes to show that the line between politics and science is difficult to define, even for the experts themselves.
"We have allowed the whole issue to be politicized-red vs. blue, Republican vs. Democrat. This is in my view absurd. Data aren't political. Data are data. Politics leads you in the direction of a belief. Data, if you follow them, lead you to truth" (Crichton). The underlying debate in the case of controversial topics is the validity of science after it has been politicized. Global warming is no longer a debate about the future of the planet, instead a battle between powerful factions. The information available about global warming is not conclusive enough to be decisive, as shown by the many skeptics out there for both sides of the argument. In the opinions of Crichton and Gore, politics should not interfere with the discoveries of science, but science should be granted the power to steer politics in the right direction.
I didn't have a position when I started discussing anthropogenic climate change on ASF; my early posts were all attempts to elicit information. But my experience over the years exactly parallels this, and I also thank (as I have already thanked Wayne) a handful of people here for provoking me to do my homework.
The guy's full story is at http://www.skepticalscience.com/CCCMpersonal2.html
He has made some good calls too but to rest your hat on him against the majority of the science community sounds a bit like political bias to me.
I didn't have a position when I started discussing anthropogenic climate change on ASF; my early posts were all attempts to elicit information. But my experience over the years exactly parallels this, and I also thank (as I have already thanked Wayne) a handful of people here for provoking me to do my homework.
The guy's full story is at http://www.skepticalscience.com/CCCMpersonal2.html
Interesting point WayneL. I wonder ho much "leakage" there has been from one "side" to the other over the years since, say 1988 when James Hansen spoke to the US Congress. Maybe someone is keeping count?Is that supposed to be some compelling evidence for CAGW?
People are persuaded around to different points of view all the time... many sceptical scientists used to be warmists and visa versa I'm sure.
We just need to get it right. Look at the amount of harm being done, or proposed to be done, to the environment in order to reduce CO2 emissions. It's not as though reducing CO2 doesn't come with an environmental downside.Again the concern needs to be that, if Co2 emissions prove to be a problem will it be too late to make any correction.
We just need to get it right. Look at the amount of harm being done, or proposed to be done, to the environment in order to reduce CO2 emissions. .
Yes a lovely piece of writing, the use of language exemplary; I enjoyed reading it.
However this is the post's only redeeming feature, the factual content being bullshyte.
The answer is actually a) + c)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?