31,000 Scientists Shatter the Myth of "Scientific Consensus" on Global Warming
Posted on 08/04/2008 5:07:07 AM PDT by AU72
THE FEW climate-change "skeptics" with any sort of scientific credentials continue to receive attention in the media out of all proportion to their numbers, their qualifications, or the merit of their arguments. And this muddying of the waters of public discourse is being magnified by the parroting of these arguments by a larger population of amateur skeptics.
First, they tell you you're wrong and they can prove it. (In this case, "Climate isn't changing in unusual ways or, if it is, human activities are not the cause.")
Then they tell you you're right but it doesn't matter. ("OK, it's changing and humans are playing a role, but it won't do much harm.") Finally, they tell you it matters but it's too late to do anything about it. ("Yes, climate disruption is going to do some real damage, but it's too late, too difficult, or too costly to avoid that, so we'll just have to hunker down and suffer.")
All three positions are represented among the climate-change skeptics who infest talk shows, Internet blogs, letters to the editor, op-ed pieces, and cocktail-party conversations. The few with credentials in climate-change science have nearly all shifted in the past few years from the first category to the second, however, and jumps from the second to the third are becoming more frequent.
The extent of unfounded skepticism about the disruption of global climate by human-produced greenhouse gases is not just regrettable, it is dangerous. It has delayed - and continues to delay - the development of the political consensus that will be needed if society is to embrace remedies commensurate with the challenge. The science of climate change is telling us that we need to get going. Those who still think this is all a mistake or a hoax need to think again.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
I am also scrathcing my head over what's climate changing in unusual ways.
"having weather..."
Pathetic.
This from a purported "scientist" from Haaaaaavaaaahd? Is this the much vaunted "scientific method" or Haaaaaaavaaaaaahd's "scientific method?"
US polls indicate that most of the amateur skeptics are Republicans. These Republican skeptics should wonder how presidential candidate John McCain could have been taken in.
Because Juan McCain is an idiot demagogue. As is apparently the author of this opinion piece.
WTF? Has this guy recently fallen off of the turnip truck?
In other words - Socialism. This has nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with social change.
Until people wake up and realize that these people want to take away the American Dream from all of us "for the greater good" of those who haven't earned it we will allow ourselves to be stripped of our freedoms.
(FRCDH) (BITS)
“THE FEW climate-change “skeptics” with any sort of scientific credentials ...”
I submit confirmation of my theory that numbers are not friends of liberals. I guess this journalism major thinks that a some thousands of folks (all with educations far beyond this reporter’s meager mental ability) is a “few”.
What a maroon.
He puts forward no evidence that climate change is man-made. He’s is just guessing.
In Western PA, the temperature range is more than 100 degrees in a single year, and we sweat in the Summer, freeze in the Winter and adapt to all the changes using clothes and heat and air conditioning.
31,000 Scientists Shatter the Myth of "Scientific Consensus" on Global Warming
Simple response on why all these notables advocate for the climate change man-caused model of intervention is “follow the money”. Which position offers more grants, more conferences and travels to exotic locations, more Nobels (and we all know how relevant those are now), more usurping of power over the people, more anointing of the “Knowledgeable Ones”?
of course that is only because fewer and fewer people believe their liberal drivel but its a start.
The guy has "beyond doubt", failed a number of "elementary scientific tests" like examining all the evidence. Second, he suffers from strawman syndrome; everything is not wrong, some parts are correct, and some are theoretical speculation (e.g. sensitivity, catastrophic climate change). Third, he suffers from physics myopia, there's a lot more to climate than energy flow in the atmosphere.
Funny, He didn’t provide a single piece of evidence.
“He puts forward no evidence that climate change is man-made. He’s is just guessing.”
Of course he doesnt...there isnt any.
I'd like to see idiots like this take the argument one step further, and tell us all in great detail, how hundreds of billions of dollars are going to change the temperature maybe one tenth of a percent (which of course could be attributed to a natural occurrence anyway).
Oh, gee, well ok then! Check's in the mail genius. Don't spend it all in one place.
I'm going to start a global climate change business. They send me a trillion bucks and I'll fix this. Guaranteed.
So if after ten years I haven't make a difference then I'll refund 100% of the trillion bucks.
That’s because there IS no evidence. Not real evidence, just computer scenarios which seem to bear minimal to no relationship to empirical readings. If you look at most of the believers arguments they seem to hinge not in science on attacking the opposition.
Anyway, how they have the hide to try to scare us about man made “global warming” when its been cooling for about 6 years and even the alarmists admit that it will probably continue to do so for at least another 10 is beyond me.
What I do find, though, is that people who haven’t given it a great deal of thought suppport their position simply because they want to do their bit to reduce pollution. Just try telling them that CO2 is not a pollutant. All you get is a blank stare.
This article is not about "convincing" climate change skeptics. It is about silencing them!
The author uses simple-minded strawman arguments, ignores the merits of the issues raised by AGW skeptics (except when sneering at these self-same merits), and generally fails to preach to anyone but the chori director.
The author is a putz.
"It's settled science!", "The debate is over!".
He's telling us morons to go back to our guns and religion and leave the thinking to the elite.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.