4 ms·

Please call those who disagree with AGW theory "skeptics". The use of the word "deniers" is pejorative, and seems meant to imply they are "denying reality." H

by lzw 16y ago

Please call those who disagree with AGW theory "skeptics". The use of the word "deniers" is pejorative, and seems meant to imply they are "denying reality." His use of the word "fraud" seems well supported considering the amount of scientific fraud that has gone on here, to such a degree that you, for instance, appear to be open minded but generally unaware of the evidence against AGW. (This is not a criticism of you, just using you as an example of the type of information that gets out.) Further, the actions in climategate, which involved adding an artificial factor to create warming, are fairly considered to be fraud. If this factor were known and the full data were presented to people, then it would be good science as it would be attempting to compensate--- but then I'm being very generous because I believe a fair assessment would show the factor is not based on science but based on a need to show warming.

ErrantX 16y ago
Sorry, in case it is not clear I am personally sceptic of a lot of the global warming science [but not climate change, gladly there is at least solid factual information there]. I did deliberately put deniers in quotes :) The fraud bit I was referring to other posts in this thread that were talking about monetary fraud. As I mentioned, I agree there is a lot of bad, often fraudulent, science going on in this field. And yet, as a sceptic, I don't see why, for example, sustainable energy is a bad idea. Or why it is even part of the debate, rather than standing on its own merits :)
- lzw 16y ago
  My position is that the initiation of force is immoral. So, if all the Venture Capitalists in Silicon Valley think that there is something going in the green energy sector and they want to pour a bunch of money into it, more power to them. Unfortunately, I suspect that the recent popularity of this sector among them is more to due with the expectation of buckets of cash coming from government than seeing a viable economic model to exploit. Viable economic models work to improve society, and they produce profits that turn around and can be invested in a variety of potentially viable technologies and economic models. It is a virtuous cycle. So, in that context, I also am in favor of "sustainable energy" as well. I just have a problem with government sticking guns in people's faces, taking the money they would have used for their babies medicine and giving it to someone who created an politically favored business in order to get government money. I'm not saying your position is any different, just that when government gets involved things get confused. People forget that there is a huge difference between VC money and government money. Also, I apologize as it seems I misunderstood your use of the word "deniers".
  - ErrantX 16y ago
    >just that when government gets involved things get confused. Agreed. Because the government is not really all that interested, at the end of the day, in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. > Also, I apologize as it seems I misunderstood your use of the word "deniers". My fault. I used "global-warmists" instead of "alarmists" because the word slipped my mind. So it does look like I come down on one side of that sentence :)

by lzw 16y ago

ErrantX 16y ago

Sorry, in case it is not clear I am personally sceptic of a lot of the global warming science [but not climate change, gladly there is at least solid factual information there]. I did deliberately put deniers in quotes :) The fraud bit I was referring to other posts in this thread that were talking about monetary fraud. As I mentioned, I agree there is a lot of bad, often fraudulent, science going on in this field. And yet, as a sceptic, I don't see why, for example, sustainable energy is a bad idea. Or why it is even part of the debate, rather than standing on its own merits :)

lzw 16y ago
My position is that the initiation of force is immoral. So, if all the Venture Capitalists in Silicon Valley think that there is something going in the green energy sector and they want to pour a bunch of money into it, more power to them. Unfortunately, I suspect that the recent popularity of this sector among them is more to due with the expectation of buckets of cash coming from government than seeing a viable economic model to exploit. Viable economic models work to improve society, and they produce profits that turn around and can be invested in a variety of potentially viable technologies and economic models. It is a virtuous cycle. So, in that context, I also am in favor of "sustainable energy" as well. I just have a problem with government sticking guns in people's faces, taking the money they would have used for their babies medicine and giving it to someone who created an politically favored business in order to get government money. I'm not saying your position is any different, just that when government gets involved things get confused. People forget that there is a huge difference between VC money and government money. Also, I apologize as it seems I misunderstood your use of the word "deniers".
- ErrantX 16y ago
  >just that when government gets involved things get confused. Agreed. Because the government is not really all that interested, at the end of the day, in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. > Also, I apologize as it seems I misunderstood your use of the word "deniers". My fault. I used "global-warmists" instead of "alarmists" because the word slipped my mind. So it does look like I come down on one side of that sentence :)