4 ms·
Not really (though your desire to "shut down" dissenting views speaks of something other than science). Most skeptics accept the well-known ability of CO2 to ab
by alvah 10y ago
Not really (though your desire to "shut down" dissenting views speaks of something other than science). Most skeptics accept the well-known ability of CO2 to absorb heat. What many are skeptical of is the Mann-made disaster associated with warming, the political skullduggery involved in the hockey-stick graph, the denial of the impact urban heat islands have on the surface temperature record, and the fact that the solutions called for conveniently intersect with the desires of many on the left of the political spectrum (higher taxes, co-ordinated international action etc).
- Nursie 10y agoThese 'concerns' are all the 'skeptics' are left with after decades of outright nonsense has been overturned. Climate science skepticism is akin to creationism at this point.
- alvah 10y agoNice hand-wave
- Nursie 10y agoYou say you accept the science but are still skeptical due to some vague, ill defined nonsense, and you have the cheek to accuse me of handwaving? Wow.
- alvah 10y agoSo pointing out -the deceptive conduct of several prominent scientists, both around the hockey stick graph and the cover-up since it was published -the discrepancies between temperatures recorded by satellites and surface stations -the convenience to one side of politics of an upcoming huge cataclysmic event requiring massive government intervention is cheek / vague, ill-defined nonsense / akin to creationism? Right. It truly is impossible to have a rational debate in public on this subject.
- Nursie 10y agoThe first point you make there is pure diversion The second is poorly supported rubbish The third is mere politics and had no bearing whatsoever on the veracity of the phenomenon. So yes, handwaving to try to support your continued position of denial, with no solid reason at all. The 'cheek' comes in that you accuse others of the same. Rational debate is impossible with people like yourself, that cling to miniscule distractions and bring politics into science, yes. It's like creationism in that you start with something you don't like (the politics of the 'other side' and what you think they're trying to achieve) and then go looking for justification for your foregone conclusion.
- WalterSear 10y agoIt's almost as good as the one it is replying to.
- mnw21cam 10y agoScientists have a lot of confidence in the historical surface temperature records, because they have been calculated in several different ways, and the results generally agree with each other. For instance, the ECMWF (the European weather prediction centre) has a very nice model that uses just barometer readings to calculate historical weather patterns, temperature and all. The results agree remarkably well with actual observed and reported weather. We have those records going back a long time, and because no thermometer readings are used, there is no potential for urban heat islands to bias the results. Because barometer readings generally are consistent over time (as in, sensor technology improvement doesn't really change the bias), there is no potential for a time-specific bias in surface temperature.