Don't discount the skeptics until you have proven your case.
They're at it again, but this article is a welcome breath of fresh air.
Mr. Derwent -- a politician and former investment banker, not a scientist -- meant that there is no middle way, that the "anthropogenic" or man-made nature of climate change is now established beyond all but the most frivolous skepticism, wilful blindness or complete ignorance. "The last few years have seen the elimination of hiding spaces for skeptics," he said later in an interview.
The thing is that it hasn't been proven, not even by a little bit. No matter how much you amplify it, naturally produced CO2 VASTLY exceed that produced by our civilization, by whole orders of magnitude. These asshole 'so-called' scientists are trying to silence critics by shaming and not by reasonable discourse. As far as I can find, there has never been reasonable discourse and the assholes on the other side have proven nothing other than they are the most bigoted assholes in the world. Mostly they go ahead and prove Global Warming (no problem there) but then they make the huge leap that human civilization is at fault (big problem there). Proving one does NOT prove the other.
Even this:"The attempt to marginalize those scientists who [try to disprove the carbon thesis] is only proof of the political agendas in this issue," he said.
-- Tim Ball, former professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg
Is, in the end, fultile. I am perfectly willing to stipulate the carbon thesis. However, what they haven't even tried to do was to prove the human civ component as having more than miniscule significance, if any at all.
One thing that hurts their credibility substantially is the alarm in their tone, like the coasts are going to flood tomorrow. They are not. The fastest recent malting rate was the pliestocene/holocene boundary and the sealevel rise was, at its worst, 15 meters per century. That's 15 centimeters or 5.9 inches per year and that was only towards the end of the boundary. The current rate of rise is substantially less then that. Early effects were much slower. Simply put, it takes time for ice to absorb heat and melt. The 10 meter rise they are talking about is going to take centuries to accomplish.
"It's not a conspiracy," added Ian Clark, professor of earth sciences at the University of Ottawa. "It's a lot of people working very hard to prove something they haven't proven."
Emphasis is mine.
and that is indeed the point! Humanity is not innocent and has a very early bad track-record. However,
Skepticism is everywhere on the climate-change stage, hidden behind the bureaucratic language. It is unpopular and vaguely distasteful, and some of it is driven by crass economics. But is there such a thing as a scientific skeptic?
My question is almost exactly the obverse, scientists are suposed to be skeptics. In fact, they are professional skeptics. These scientists are acting more like religious nuts.
Mr. Derwent -- a politician and former investment banker, not a scientist -- meant that there is no middle way, that the "anthropogenic" or man-made nature of climate change is now established beyond all but the most frivolous skepticism, wilful blindness or complete ignorance. "The last few years have seen the elimination of hiding spaces for skeptics," he said later in an interview.
The thing is that it hasn't been proven, not even by a little bit. No matter how much you amplify it, naturally produced CO2 VASTLY exceed that produced by our civilization, by whole orders of magnitude. These asshole 'so-called' scientists are trying to silence critics by shaming and not by reasonable discourse. As far as I can find, there has never been reasonable discourse and the assholes on the other side have proven nothing other than they are the most bigoted assholes in the world. Mostly they go ahead and prove Global Warming (no problem there) but then they make the huge leap that human civilization is at fault (big problem there). Proving one does NOT prove the other.
Even this:"The attempt to marginalize those scientists who [try to disprove the carbon thesis] is only proof of the political agendas in this issue," he said.
-- Tim Ball, former professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg
Is, in the end, fultile. I am perfectly willing to stipulate the carbon thesis. However, what they haven't even tried to do was to prove the human civ component as having more than miniscule significance, if any at all.
One thing that hurts their credibility substantially is the alarm in their tone, like the coasts are going to flood tomorrow. They are not. The fastest recent malting rate was the pliestocene/holocene boundary and the sealevel rise was, at its worst, 15 meters per century. That's 15 centimeters or 5.9 inches per year and that was only towards the end of the boundary. The current rate of rise is substantially less then that. Early effects were much slower. Simply put, it takes time for ice to absorb heat and melt. The 10 meter rise they are talking about is going to take centuries to accomplish.
"It's not a conspiracy," added Ian Clark, professor of earth sciences at the University of Ottawa. "It's a lot of people working very hard to prove something they haven't proven."
Emphasis is mine.
and that is indeed the point! Humanity is not innocent and has a very early bad track-record. However,
Skepticism is everywhere on the climate-change stage, hidden behind the bureaucratic language. It is unpopular and vaguely distasteful, and some of it is driven by crass economics. But is there such a thing as a scientific skeptic?
My question is almost exactly the obverse, scientists are suposed to be skeptics. In fact, they are professional skeptics. These scientists are acting more like religious nuts.