Global Warming

Originally posted by HappyCats ↑

You guys do realise that AGW in science was around long before it was in politics. Yet you seem to be suggesting the tail wags the dog. Back in the early 90's no politicians had heard about AGW. The conspiracy theories are so ridiculous - they defy the very nature of the work of scientists.

Denialism is very much like creationism - those people who believe animals marched on and off an ark in pairs also genuinely believe they know more than scientists. Which is why I find deluded a more apt term than denialist, and as for skeptics - you must be joking.

Expand

HappyCats,

You said: "The feedback works both ways, so when you have non-CO2 driven cycles, CO2 lags temp. When you have CO2 driven cycles (e.g. peak volcanism, and now AGW), temp lags CO2."

You said: "Some of you people who know everything must think scientists are retards and PhDs are found in Cornflakes boxes. It's amazing that we aren't still trying to figure out how to carve a wheel, isn't it?"

I said: "Do you think continental placement, ocean currents, mountain ranges and wind and weather behaviour give a fair like for like comparison with the present?"

You said: "What do you mean MI - same as Cretaceous. No - Atlantic rift was still young and Australia still attached to Antarctica back then."

You said: "Don't *** too much, I am only negating the oft quoted error by the deluded that CO2 only lags."

You said: "Yes BB. Your sentiment is a reflection of a deeper problem. That is that the general populace doesn't understand science, and it is easier to grasp rants from Bolt, uncredentialed bloggers or Murdoch columnists.

The debate from the deluded is flawed from inception. With no common basis for the logic and process of science, any discussion is invalid.

Dingo is right, the communicators of science to the general public are terrible and often polarising. The politicisation of the issue brings in an even worse bunch of personalities. As I've written here many times we don't have such an aggressive affront to the credibility of scientists working on research regarding the atmosphere of Mars. Why is that? Is that because their science is better, or there is no political motivation."

From the above I gather you view peak volcanism and AGM as one and the same, otherwise you wouldn't have used it to justify your position unless that is it was convenient to do so. Just for the record I think a young Atlantic Rift and Australia being attached to Antarctica is a little bit of an understatement when it comes to like for like.

From the above I gather you say things for effect rather than for fact. You don't keep things in context and even though you admit your comment was not a good like for like example you continue on to say " the communicators of science to the general public are terrible and often polarising" .

I once had trouble understanding why you bothered to post on stock threads where you didn't hold any stock, yet seemed obsessed to the point of appearing OCD with convincing holders of their errant ways. It's all coming clear now.

I reckon you are spot on with your comment that communicators of science to the general public are terrible. I guess that's why you also think the great unwashed are delusional!

You need look no further than the mirror if you think communicators of science to the general public are terrible.

It wouldn't be anything new to tell you that you that you will catch more flies with honey than you will with vinegar, although somehow I doubt whether you really want to communicate something to the public. Calling the public delusional probably satisfies a higher need within.

MI