This is only your opinion. Pielke has no more an idea of the full mechanisms in play that any other scientist. His research like all others is probability based. His theories simply sit better with your own views. Your choice of language like "holistic" & "reasonable" betrays this fact, you can't have it both ways.
Perhaps, but Pielke et al do take all the science to form those opinions, rather than cherrypicking data. This means he is likely to be less biased. Actually, Pielke
made me change my views, they didn't sit so well at first. I chose his position as the most likely because of his lack of bias and did not exclude any science.
Once again this is only an opinion. Please stop saying this as if you know the answers. You DO NOT know this to be fact, any more than those in the scientific community who practice good research, who are honest & state only known facts. You DO NOT know better than ANYONE else what is true.
I'll stop so long as everybody else does. While they state their pet views as fact, so will I. We all know it is just opinion.
Agreed to point, this is as much a blanket statement, as full of bias as any.
No, it is a demonstrable reality
As stated above NO ONE fully knows where or if or at what point, there might or might not be "sudden" climate change. Define sudden. Please stop making blanket statements that are just as wrong as the alarmists ones.
If you show me an incidence of sudden
global climate change without some precipitous intervening event, I'll accept your statement. Until then I stand by mine.
Everyone is entitled to have an opinion, you are being as biased in your methodology in putting them forward as everyone else, by putting them forward as facts. They are unproven theories, nothing more nothing less.
Wrong. They are not even theories, they are hypotheses. If the one thing that could be achieved through all the bluster, bs, grandstanding, scare tactics and debate, is the simple fact of your statement that nobody knows what the ~~~~ is going on.
I will readily concede anything you say here. But the problem is that the alarmists will concede no such thing, they promote their hypothesis as actual fact and are causing dramatic policy decisions having convinced idiot politicians of such.
The terms of the debate is that ones guesswork is promoted as the unequivocal truth; those terms are framed by the extremists and those are the rules all in the debate must abide to be heard.
Look, we live in a world where we are told daily we will be swimming in boiling oceans within our lifetime as if it were a fact. The most dodgy science imaginable is made into a movie and promoted as the future. The producer of such fiction jags a Nobel Prize and gets rich by this alarmism.
The world needs a counterpoint to this vile manipulation with questionable ends. The outright deniers aren't effective and there are issues we do need to deal with.
The truth is that the IPCC models are a failure and much of the science a fraud and/or interpreted for a defined end. This is not how science should be.
Now we have politicians equating CC sceptics with holocaust deniers. WTF? This madness must stop.
Therefore I and others will continue to couch our views in exactly the same way they do. The debate is not fair so there are different rules.