wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,944
- Reactions
- 13,231
Snopes is no better than the Guardian
Lovelock, Dyson, Curry are three that come to mind off the top of my headHave you found any scientists yet that have altered their position from support of AGW to agnostic?
Lovelock, Dyson, Curry are three that come to mind off the top of my head
Absolutely, which is the position of almost all moderates, including myself. But it earns the title of " denier" from y'allAll of who you mention support AGW. It seems they all disagree with the modeling.
Absolutely, which is the position of almost all moderates, including myself. But it earns the title of " denier" from y'all
I don't accept the alarmist position on climate change, but I have stated my position numerous times here.I thought you don't accept AGW? Many skeptics don't.
"MODERATE", starrruth! a bit on the extreme to this ole black duck.Absolutely, which is the position of almost all moderates, including myself. But it earns the title of " denier" from y'all
I don't accept the alarmist position on climate change, but I have stated my position numerous times here.
It is the appalling tactics of the likes of basilio and plod to label it as denial.
1/ Anyone making representations not supported by empirical data and/or retrospectively and fraudulently adjusts data to create an illusion of a trend not supported by empirical data... Gore, Hanson, Schmidt, Mann, Romm for example.What do you consider an alarmist position? Do you think any action is required?
Dr Bjorn Lomborg is a moderate: http://www.lomborg.com/, and he is an actual believer in AGW.What do you consider an alarmist position? Do you think any action is required?
http://joannenova.com.au/2017/10/th...-who-change-their-minds-about-climate-change/
October 2017 - The rise of fake skeptics who “change their minds” about climate change
..Alas, Kilvert doesn’t realize the traffic is all the other way, an exodus, and there is no single outspoken skeptic that has convincingly switched the other way..
Fake sceptics - don't be conned folks
1/ Anyone making representations not supported by empirical data and/or retrospectively and fraudulently adjusts data to create an illusion of a trend not supported by empirical data... Gore, Hanson, Schmidt, Mann, Romm for example.
2/ I think any action to reduce pollution is worthwhile. I think the current predeliction that demonises fossil fuels may prove to be counter-productive, both in terms of economics and ecology.
However, I believe replacement of fossil fuels on a reasonable basis is a good goal, for a couple of reasons not related to co2 emissions
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?