The warmers are becoming skeptics

Status
Not open for further replies.
a_unique_person said:
Al Gore said it?

Scientists didn't say it. What you have is a case of lay people trying to put in a few words what scientists actually said. .
Click to expand...

I never said it was scientists, I simply observed that it is repeatedly used by many in the warmer crowd.
At any rate, you simply confirm my point that it is not a valid argument.
 
A.A.Alfie said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8394000/8394669.stm

Do you want more evidence that the political and social climate is changing?
Here's a BBC interview.
They respectfully interview two scientists about public opinion, the science, scepticism, legitimacy of peer review etc, etc.

The BBC! Respectfully interviewing a skeptical scientist.

Imagine, credible discussions about what us skeptics have been discussing all along.

Anyone still think that public, journalistic and political sentiment isn't changing?
Click to expand...
Yes, you're right. The only time a denier has ever appeared on the BBC before was the infamous Newsnight special where they put him in the stocks and Jeremy Paxman hurled rotten fruit at him. Clearly the tide is turning in favor of the head-in-the-sand faction, and you have such rock-hard data to prove it.

Just so long as no-one discusses the actual science, which you have deemed off-topic in this thread for reasons which are transparently obvious.
 
Dr Adequate said:
Yes, you're right. The only time a denier has ever appeared on the BBC before was the infamous Newsnight special where they put him in the stocks and Jeremy Paxman hurled rotten fruit at him. Clearly the tide is turning in favor of the head-in-the-sand faction, and you have such rock-hard data to prove it.

Just so long as no-one discusses the actual science, which you have deemed off-topic in this thread for reasons which are transparently obvious.
Click to expand...

Sigh
You don't seem to understand that the science is not actually or necessarily relevant when it comes to public opinion. Moreover, there is more than one element of a discussion within any topic. This one is the politics and migration of opinion.


technoextreme said:
Show me the proof A.A.Alfie. You can't run. You can't just make up strawmen and run away.
Click to expand...
Proof of what? That people are turning away from your "accepted science". That's what I am doing.
What strawmen?

parky76 said:
I think GCC deniers are just making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Click to expand...

Really?

The U.N.’s top climate official on Sunday conceded that hacked e-mails from climate scientists had damaged the image of global warming research but said evidence of a warming Earth is solid…

”This correspondence looks very bad,” de Boer said. “But I think both the university is looking into this (and) I believe there is a police investigation going on whether the e-mails were leaked or stolen.”

De Boer noted that the head of the U.N.’s expert panel on climate change, Rajendra Pachauri, had also announced that he would investigate the matter.

And this is all I am saying:
Climategate has damaged the public perception.
The science in itself has not changed but
It will and is to be reviewed.
 
A.A.Alfie said:
I don't think too many of us are saying there is no global warming. More that the A in AGW is in question.
Your post is redundant - sorry.
Click to expand...

Um, wasn't the whole email thing supposted to be because there really is no global warming and it was all manufactured by data manipulation?
 
ponderingturtle said:
Um, wasn't the whole email thing supposted to be because there really is no global warming and it was all manufactured by data manipulation?
Click to expand...

Some of the denier extremists are saying that sort of stuff. There aren't too many of them here imo.
 
Upchurch said:
That's a shame. The deniers have done a fine PR spin-job.
Click to expand...

You don't think it possible (clearly) that the spin has already been done and now is being unravelled? :confused:

Upchurch said:
Then we will be in even more trouble sooner.
Click to expand...

How so? Assuming AGW is an absolute given, will the lack of funding speed up its advance? And what sort of trouble are we going to be in?:boggled:

Upchurch said:
Congrats to you!
Click to expand...

Aw shucks, but I really can't take all the credit.:)
 
A.A.Alfie said:
Sigh
You don't seem to understand that the science is not actually or necessarily relevant when it comes to public opinion.
Click to expand...

No, I think we all know that.

What YOU seem incapable of understanding is that public opinion makes absolutely bugger all difference to the science. AGW should NOT be assessed on public opinion, it should be assessed on the science which you are claiming is irrelevant for this thread. You keep pointing out that you don't want to discuss the science, and actually believe that global warming (just GW) is real. Ok, fair enough, so WHY in the name of all that is holy do you keep bangning on about claims that data backing general warming is faulty?

WHY are you bringing someone who doesn't seem to think that the warming data, the information that let us not forget makes no mention on its own about the reasons for the warming, is faulty into this? Why do you think Public Opinion is so sacred? Lots of people deny evolution as well, is THAT seriously under debate?

I remember when you first joined here, and ou claimed to be someone who was genuinely confused by the GW debate, and that you honestly wanted the truth of the matter, that you were really undecided on whether it was caused by humans or not, although you leaned slightly towards no. It has since become obvious that you absolutely revel in the thought that there could be a big science conspiracy. Why are you any different from the people who want a list of scientists in unrelated fields denying evolution being used to discredit actual science?
 
i see no basis for saying the scientific evidence suggesting AGW is a fraud.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
No, I think we all know that.
Click to expand...

Great, many seem not to notice this.

MarkCorrigan said:
What YOU seem incapable of understanding is that public opinion makes absolutely bugger all difference to the science.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. I'm surprised you think otherwise.

MarkCorrigan said:
AGW should NOT be assessed on public opinion, it should be assessed on the science which you are claiming is irrelevant for this thread. You keep pointing out that you don't want to discuss the science, and actually believe that global warming (just GW) is real. Ok, fair enough, so WHY in the name of all that is holy do you keep bangning on about claims that data backing general warming is faulty?
Click to expand...

Because there is plenty of information coming forward that show (or suggests) that the information is faulty. The warmers want to deny and/or dismiss the existence of this infoirmation. Why?


MarkCorrigan said:
WHY are you bringing someone who doesn't seem to think that the warming data, the information that let us not forget makes no mention on its own about the reasons for the warming, is faulty into this? Why do you think Public Opinion is so sacred? Lots of people deny evolution as well, is THAT seriously under debate?
Click to expand...

My bold here..
Who is this "someone"?
I don't think public opinion is "sacred", you must not have noticed my question about the polls accuracy.

MarkCorrigan said:
I remember when you first joined here, and ou claimed to be someone who was genuinely confused by the GW debate, and that you honestly wanted the truth of the matter, that you were really undecided on whether it was caused by humans or not, although you leaned slightly towards no. It has since become obvious that you absolutely revel in the thought that there could be a big science conspiracy. Why are you any different from the people who want a list of scientists in unrelated fields denying evolution being used to discredit actual science?
Click to expand...

I am still undecided.
"If you had been paying attention I consistently say I am skeptical of the "A" in AGW. And sure, I promote the opposing view, only because the alarmists here deny their existence. The alarmists (since I have joined) have through their attitude made my skepticism even stronger, me thinks they doth protest too much.
Couple that with the continued and rapidly growing list of failures, misinformation and controversy and I would ask wjy aren't you skeptical too?

parky76 said:
i see no basis for saying the scientific evidence suggesting AGW is a fraud.
Click to expand...

So you believe everything the scientists say?
 
A.A.Alfie said:
So you believe everything the scientists say?
Click to expand...

9-11 Truthers say: "so you believe everything the government says?

:D

when it comes to climate change, who else BUT the expert scientists...should I believe???

physicists? seismologists? architects? farmers? comedians???
 
parky76 said:
9-11 Truthers say: "so you believe everything the government says?

:D
Click to expand...

Do they? I know virtually nothing of 9-11 truthers.
That said, I do not believe everything my government tells me, do you?

parky76 said:
when it comes to climate change, who else BUT the expert scientists...should I believe???

physicists? seismologists? architects? farmers? comedians???
Click to expand...


A fair point - but only to a point.
Do you still 'blindly' believe them even in the light of human flaws, failures and controversy that follows them and their science?
Which experts do you believe? You can't believe all of them because there are expert scientists that don't follow the party line 100%.

I am genuinely bemused that intelligent people believe so wholeheartedly in the alarmism that follows the science, and don't have some questions around this, but prefer to explain away these 'contradictions' without (what many would consider) a satisfactory answer.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom