Harvard historian: strategy of climate science, page-69

First 69 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
bergus

604 Posts.

05/08/14

21:03

Post #: 13774462
Share

Originally posted by Tapdancer ↑

You seriously have NO idea what you're talking about. Seriously.

Firstly, I don't discredit Science. I discredit those whose claims are unlikely to pass simple rationale, yet who will still insist those claims are "science". For example, you yourself were sceptical of tipping points, yet it's these very tipping points tristanc stated are needed to support the claim that we are heading for 4 degrees warming by 2100.

Next, please don't fantasise for a second that I might walk around in a T-shirt proclaiming "I'm a Sceptic", thinking this makes me a proud non-believer in Science. That's the most bizarre notion I've come across since joining Hot Copper.

Thirdly, Science is not about consensus. We are MILES away from forming an accurate conclusion to a number of issues concerning the complex science of climate. Both sides will agree on that.

Fourthly, I have no real issue that man-made CO2 does in some significant way contribute to global warming. What I do take issue with is the so-called 'consensus' that it will lead to catastrophic warming of 3 degrees plus by century's end, amongst other catastrophic outcomes. There's little in the temperature record, temperature trends, likely trends, and, as yet, what I consider to be anywhere near a sufficient understanding of the climate, to suggest with any significant confidence that this will be the likely outcome. Therefore I'm very sceptical of this particular alarmist projection, so much so to the point that I consider it falls into the realm of prophecy.

Finally, I'm not a "free market purist". I love market-based economies, but that's as close as it gets. My motivation stems from speaking out against B.S. wherever I see it, and against those who cleverly aim to fool people such as yourself by passing-off such B.S. as "science".

Expand

I read some of your posts on AGM (you have heaps!) and you are very conflicting
Just quickly....

You acknowledge part of the climate science (man made co2 contributing to GW) but discredit other parts because of your own personal perceptions....also known as the cherry picking fallacy

The end of the world predictions is counter productive and annoy me too but this is not science your waging a "BS " campaign against. How/when/where did I pass off any alarmist BS ???
Upvote

Reply