3 ms·

Come on. Nobody threatens opposing viewpoints to anthropogenic global warming. Competing hypotheses even get tested, things like CLOUD or BEST come to mind. The

Come on. Nobody threatens opposing viewpoints to anthropogenic global warming. Competing hypotheses even get tested, things like CLOUD or BEST come to mind. They are just really weak explanations. If you would read history, you would actually find that AGW had similar story as Wegener theory, if anything. Until Keeling and Plass came, nobody took the Arrhenius' and Chamberlin's idea seriously. And there was even experimental evidence from Calendar. And the same goes for Milankovitch cycles, which are one of the most important pieces of evidence for AGW.

dougabug 12y ago
This is an incredulous claim. Even scientists such as Freeman Dyson and Hendrik Tennekes had their reputations smeared for daring to express skepticism over the most dire claims of catastrophic AGW proponents. Dyson didn't even claim that the Earth wasn't warming, he simply criticized the then strong faith in the predictions of GCMs, and the popularization of extreme catastrophic claims such as a 20 foot rise in global sea levels this century. Physics Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever quit the American Physical Society, saying “In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?” The Climate Gate scandal showed irrefutably that prominent scientists in the climate research community conspired to spike the publication of dissenting scientists. Expressing skepticism regarding catastrophic AGW has unquestionably been a 21st shibboleth. Even skeptics of the Big Bang aren't branded as "Deniers" with editorials from prominent policy advisors (James Hansen) calling for charging them with "high crimes against humanity and nature." For the record, I am not a "Denier," so please no scarlett letter "D."
- asgard1024 12y ago
  There is a difference, though. Wegener had an alternative theory. As far as I can tell, those "skeptics" don't have any good alternative explanation (or data), just a gut feeling. So they are not at all in the same position as Wegener. Catastrophic claims do no good, that's true. But frivolous skepticism (without a good counter-theory) has policy implications (continuing business as usual, which is unsustainable). The scientists opposing AGW are not being mass criticized for their scientific opinion (because they don't have any), but for the policies they give support to. I also disagree with your interpretation of climate gate, but let's leave that.
- simonh 12y ago
  Climategate was wholy invented. "Finally, we have the emails! We've got the b@574rd5!" Except the emails contained nothing remotely incriminating. A few poorly worded comments maybe, perhaps some otuspoken opinions, a lack of sufficient transparency, but once the information was out and was transparent there wasn't even even the slightest shred of actual conspiracy or suppression of evidence. What are they hiding? It turned out, nothing!
- mavhc 12y ago
  Only one of those things will kill billions of people though. Hopefully it ends up like Y2K, the publicity causes people to actually fix the problem so well that the general public thinks it was all hype.

dougabug 12y ago

This is an incredulous claim. Even scientists such as Freeman Dyson and Hendrik Tennekes had their reputations smeared for daring to express skepticism over the most dire claims of catastrophic AGW proponents. Dyson didn't even claim that the Earth wasn't warming, he simply criticized the then strong faith in the predictions of GCMs, and the popularization of extreme catastrophic claims such as a 20 foot rise in global sea levels this century. Physics Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever quit the American Physical Society, saying “In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?” The Climate Gate scandal showed irrefutably that prominent scientists in the climate research community conspired to spike the publication of dissenting scientists. Expressing skepticism regarding catastrophic AGW has unquestionably been a 21st shibboleth. Even skeptics of the Big Bang aren't branded as "Deniers" with editorials from prominent policy advisors (James Hansen) calling for charging them with "high crimes against humanity and nature." For the record, I am not a "Denier," so please no scarlett letter "D."

asgard1024 12y ago
There is a difference, though. Wegener had an alternative theory. As far as I can tell, those "skeptics" don't have any good alternative explanation (or data), just a gut feeling. So they are not at all in the same position as Wegener. Catastrophic claims do no good, that's true. But frivolous skepticism (without a good counter-theory) has policy implications (continuing business as usual, which is unsustainable). The scientists opposing AGW are not being mass criticized for their scientific opinion (because they don't have any), but for the policies they give support to. I also disagree with your interpretation of climate gate, but let's leave that.
simonh 12y ago
Climategate was wholy invented. "Finally, we have the emails! We've got the b@574rd5!" Except the emails contained nothing remotely incriminating. A few poorly worded comments maybe, perhaps some otuspoken opinions, a lack of sufficient transparency, but once the information was out and was transparent there wasn't even even the slightest shred of actual conspiracy or suppression of evidence. What are they hiding? It turned out, nothing!
mavhc 12y ago
Only one of those things will kill billions of people though. Hopefully it ends up like Y2K, the publicity causes people to actually fix the problem so well that the general public thinks it was all hype.