re: Observation on "science deniers" and climate change

quote:

---

I wished the left was as passionate about the science (real science) of curing cancer as they are about political science of climate change.

---

The left loves cancer. They admire the progressiveness of it. I suspect they are envious of it's power to cause fear and destroy.

quote:

---

So, uh, who is going to fix it?

---

No one.

Man simply does not have the ability to do so.

What scares me the most is some morons claiming they've invented the ability to control the climate and stupid enough to try it.

quote:

---

what we are going to do to fix it

---

Notice the shift away from science and to politics.

When you see this be suspicious, very suspicious.

quote:

---

Stop allowing the media and others from advancing the premise that because you disagree with AGW that you are somehow a "science denier" You simply do not agree with their "results".

Ever asked a climatologist to defend their statements? Try it, they use a lot of anecdotal b.s. and engage in patronizing condescension.

---

I think you have this backwards.

quote:

---

The articles have a total of 33,690 individual authors. The top ten countries represented, in order, are USA, England, China, Germany, Japan, Canada, Australia, France, Spain, and Netherlands. (The chart shows results through November 9th, 2012.)


Global warming deniers often claim that bias prevents them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. But 24 articles in 18 different journals, collectively making several different arguments against global warming, expose that claim as false. Articles rejecting global warming can be published, but those that have been have earned little support or notice, even from other deniers.

A few deniers have become well known from newspaper interviews, Congressional hearings, conferences of climate change critics, books, lectures, websites and the like. Their names are conspicuously rare among the authors of the rejecting articles. Like those authors, the prominent deniers must have no evidence that falsifies global warming.

---

LINK

LINK

If the side denying the scientific consensus is convinced of their arguments, they have a way to make their case: The peer review process. If the consensus is wrong, prove it. Put up for scrutiny peer reviewed data and let the rest of the scientific community judge.

And before anyone pulls the conspiracy card, revisit the first paragraph and note China was included in this number. You know, the worlds biggest polluter? The country with the most to lose by acknowledging the global consensus? A closed system where they could easily suppress or completely propagandize things if wanted.

Yet even China has done the homework and as such have decided pretty publicly, that if we step down from the Paris accords, they will gladly take our place . Taking with it the clout and leadership positioning that will provide their industries with the best seat at the table. Which is why Exxon, Shell, and other fuel industries have told Trump not to leave the table. That it is misguided, bad for America and even bad for them.

And its not just scientists, insurers and the military have done extensive research into the science because it is pivotal to their operational duties to know what risk factors are out there that could affect them.

quote:

---

To the extent that climate is affected by human activity, it is the direct result of previous scientific achievements which have led to longer lives and more people on the planet.

"Fixing" the climate will undoubtedly lead to massive changes, many of which will be totally unforeseen, and not all of which will be positive.

---

In what sense are the consequences of arresting temperature rise less predictable than the consequences of continuing temperature rise?

Good article which challenges the "general consensus" of climate change. Read all three parts

LINK