Hard News: Don't call it a consensus
103 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
Well why let a fun thread die ...
Since we are into new descriptions of people with whom we disagree, just for fun, perhaps we can call those most devout believers in AGW "Climate Catastrophists"
This article ought to cause the catastrophists to clench their sphincter muscle tighter than it is already ....
http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Basic+Greenhouse+Equations+Totally+Wrong/article10973.htm
More pain ... Damn I am cruel today.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/the_epicycles_of_global_warmin.html
An interesting take on money on both sides of the AGW debate.
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/global-warming-payola/index.html?hp
There is plenty of money on the side of the AGW promoters, yet that is never cited as a reason to be skeptical of their conclusions, is it?
It is definitely interesting that over the last year or so there really seems to be in increase in the amount material and studies (not to mention actual temperatures and weather) that call into question AGW. Yet the screeches of “consensus” and “deniers” only seem to get louder.
I would take AGW more seriously if it wasn't for the name calling, the sure sign of a weak argument. If it wasn't for all the other bogus "we are all going to die" theories that have surfaced in my short lifetime. We had an ice age on the way in the 1970s, the world was going to run out of food and there was going to be worldwide famine by 1990. The world was going to run out of most resources by x date. Even today there is always some pinhead jumping up talking about peak oil, in spite of the fact that oil reserves continue to grow and we have only explored about 25% of the earth's surface. And I am sure that plenty of those batty predictions were peer reviewed and described as a consensus, the debate is over etc.
There was Eugenics in the 1920s and 1930s. When science gets politicized, as the global warming debate unquestionably has, things can really end up badly.
Then there are the predications and recommendations of the GW crowd themselves. According to their own models, if the recommendations of the Kyoto Treaty were to be fully implemented it would reduce the temperature of the earth by 0.6 of a degree in one hundred years time, but the earth would attain the additional 0.6 degrees 6 years later. And in the meantime the developed world would have been dramatically negatively impacted, but so much worse, God only knows how many people in the developing world would have died as a result of the unnecessary restrictions on energy generation and consumption. And that is the real beef, massive, negative, destructive change forced on the basis of speculative science predictions.
-
James, I would respond, but it appears your argument is 'global warming is a myth because I believe that peak oil won't happen'.
Which doesn't seem worth anyone's time to be honest.
-
This was in Popbitch today:
Wonder why The Klaxons looked so out of it trying
to mime alongside Rihanna at the Brits? They'd
dropped some acid before the show. Respect.Hehe!
Post your response…
This topic is closed.