AGW denial is anti-science
Discussion
Esceptico said:
The predictions for severe negative consequences are for the future. Which is why Greta and young people are pissed off as deniers like Trump will be long dead before the s
t hits the fan. And because any hope of avoiding it requires action today. If we wait until the effects are severe it would be too late to do anything about it.
The future they are worried about is a decade away, not end of century.t hits the fan. And because any hope of avoiding it requires action today. If we wait until the effects are severe it would be too late to do anything about it. 
Esceptico said:
...... repeating that claim but catastrophic impacts have not been predicted to happen.
You sir, are not a fully signed up member of your religion. In this religion you can not cherry pick what you want to believe and what you want to discard. Its either the full shebang or you are a denier ! 
10 years is what we've got left. And that's 10 years until the planet is uninhabitable according to the politics and those 'climate scientists' who wish to remain complicit in project fear for the means of further funding.
Where is the IPCC's voice in discrediting the hysterics, where is their voice of 'reason' to alleviate the tremendous fear that the youngsters seem to be indoctrinated with?
In this religion you are either on the same page or you are a denier - just as your opening post suggests.
Edited by V10leptoquark on Friday 1st November 09:06
Esceptico said:
Yes nothing bad until the end of the century - please can you get Kawasiki to read it so he doesn’t keep telling us that AGW is not real because nothing has happened yet!
The point is that to prevent something bad happening at the end of the century we would need to change now. Of course that isn’t happening.
What about the extreme weather we are suffering now, exacerbated by CAGW? Do you deny that people are already suffering?The point is that to prevent something bad happening at the end of the century we would need to change now. Of course that isn’t happening.
Are the conflicts caused in part by CAGW “nothing bad”? Mass migration, climate ‘fugees?
People like you make me sick. You don’t see the extreme events, so you don’t believe. Whole ecosystems are collapsing. How dare you continue to look away. How very dare you.
Denier!
Gadgetmac said:
JuniorD said:
I don’t know people sleep at night with this Chicken Little Syndrome
It’s because the people around today aren’t the ones who are going to have to live with ststorm to come.V10leptoquark said:
Esceptico said:
...... repeating that claim but catastrophic impacts have not been predicted to happen.
You sir, are not a fully signed up member of your religion. In this religion you can not cherry pick what you want to believe and what you want to discard. Its either the full shebang or you are a denier ! 10 years is what we've got left. And that's 10 years until the planet is uninhabitable according to the politics and those 'climate scientists' who wish to remain complicit in project fear for the means of further funding.
Where is the IPCC's voice in discrediting the hysterics, where is their voice of 'reason' to alleviate the tremendous fear that the youngsters seem to be indoctrinated with?
In this religion you are either on the same page or you are a denier - just as your opening post suggests.
Edited by V10leptoquark on Friday 1st November 09:06
I know you won’t read it but here is a recent(ish) statement from the IPCC:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/20...
Compare the measured, rather cautious use of language by the IPCC to the hyperbole you write.
The ten years you are quoting is bulls
t you have invented. The IPCC talks of us reaching 1.5 degrees (which is forecast to have manageable levels of climate impacts - that is why it was the target at the Paris conference) somewhere between 2030 and 2052. So likely decades away. The more problematic 2 degree rise would be decades after that unless the rate of temperature rise accelerates.I’m sure there some eco warriors spouting crap just like deniers and yes some in the green movement are just as blinded by their “religion” as the deniers on the right but they are not representative of climate science.
Esceptico said:
Perhaps you can reference some reputable source for the nonsense above?
I know you won’t read it but here is a recent(ish) statement from the IPCC:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/20...
Compare the measured, rather cautious use of language by the IPCC to the hyperbole you write.
The ten years you are quoting is bullst you have invented. The IPCC talks of us reaching 1.5 degrees (which is forecast to have manageable levels of climate impacts - that is why it was the target at the Paris conference) somewhere between 2030 and 2052. So likely decades away. The more problematic 2 degree rise would be decades after that unless the rate of temperature rise accelerates.
I’m sure there some eco warriors spouting crap just like deniers and yes some in the green movement are just as blinded by their “religion” as the deniers on the right but they are not representative of climate science.
You are quite correct, most of the sources in the news say twelve years, although as far as climate change goes the difference is small. It is also amusing that you ask for reputable sources then point at the IPCC which is a political body not scientific. I know you won’t read it but here is a recent(ish) statement from the IPCC:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/20...
Compare the measured, rather cautious use of language by the IPCC to the hyperbole you write.
The ten years you are quoting is bulls
t you have invented. The IPCC talks of us reaching 1.5 degrees (which is forecast to have manageable levels of climate impacts - that is why it was the target at the Paris conference) somewhere between 2030 and 2052. So likely decades away. The more problematic 2 degree rise would be decades after that unless the rate of temperature rise accelerates.I’m sure there some eco warriors spouting crap just like deniers and yes some in the green movement are just as blinded by their “religion” as the deniers on the right but they are not representative of climate science.
It just seems you are falling into the same trap as drivers that think anyone driving slower than you is a useless duffer and anyone faster a dangerous idiot. Do you not see that to someone you call a denier applying the same logic will see you as a manic eco warrior.
Toltec said:
You are quite correct, most of the sources in the news say twelve years, although as far as climate change goes the difference is small. It is also amusing that you ask for reputable sources then point at the IPCC which is a political body not scientific.
It just seems you are falling into the same trap as drivers that think anyone driving slower than you is a useless duffer and anyone faster a dangerous idiot. Do you not see that to someone you call a denier applying the same logic will see you as a manic eco warrior.
An anti-science eco warrior at that.It just seems you are falling into the same trap as drivers that think anyone driving slower than you is a useless duffer and anyone faster a dangerous idiot. Do you not see that to someone you call a denier applying the same logic will see you as a manic eco warrior.
Toltec said:
Esceptico said:
Perhaps you can reference some reputable source for the nonsense above?
I know you won’t read it but here is a recent(ish) statement from the IPCC:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/20...
Compare the measured, rather cautious use of language by the IPCC to the hyperbole you write.
The ten years you are quoting is bullst you have invented. The IPCC talks of us reaching 1.5 degrees (which is forecast to have manageable levels of climate impacts - that is why it was the target at the Paris conference) somewhere between 2030 and 2052. So likely decades away. The more problematic 2 degree rise would be decades after that unless the rate of temperature rise accelerates.
I’m sure there some eco warriors spouting crap just like deniers and yes some in the green movement are just as blinded by their “religion” as the deniers on the right but they are not representative of climate science.
You are quite correct, most of the sources in the news say twelve years, although as far as climate change goes the difference is small. It is also amusing that you ask for reputable sources then point at the IPCC which is a political body not scientific. I know you won’t read it but here is a recent(ish) statement from the IPCC:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/20...
Compare the measured, rather cautious use of language by the IPCC to the hyperbole you write.
The ten years you are quoting is bulls
t you have invented. The IPCC talks of us reaching 1.5 degrees (which is forecast to have manageable levels of climate impacts - that is why it was the target at the Paris conference) somewhere between 2030 and 2052. So likely decades away. The more problematic 2 degree rise would be decades after that unless the rate of temperature rise accelerates.I’m sure there some eco warriors spouting crap just like deniers and yes some in the green movement are just as blinded by their “religion” as the deniers on the right but they are not representative of climate science.
It just seems you are falling into the same trap as drivers that think anyone driving slower than you is a useless duffer and anyone faster a dangerous idiot. Do you not see that to someone you call a denier applying the same logic will see you as a manic eco warrior.
Esceptico said:
The IPCC doesn’t undertake science but the reports are drafted by scientists, drawing on peer reviewed papers. Each report is a reasonable summary of our understanding of climate change at that point with a range of predictions for the future. I am well aware that Deniers dismiss the IPCC by pointing out some weaknesses. I am well used to those tactics from anti-evolutionists who leap on any minor inconsistency and try to claim that all of evolution is bunk.
I don’t dismiss the IPCC reports because of some minor inconsistencies. I dismiss the reports because they’re junk.Esceptico said:
The IPCC doesn’t undertake science but the reports are drafted by scientists, drawing on peer reviewed papers. Each report is a reasonable summary of our understanding of climate change at that point with a range of predictions for the future. I am well aware that Deniers dismiss the IPCC by pointing out some weaknesses. I am well used to those tactics from anti-evolutionists who leap on any minor inconsistency and try to claim that all of evolution is bunk.
Again you are mixing up your sets, not agreeing with the IPCC is not the same same as disagreeing with all climate science. You keep trying to connect people that disagree with your view with another set of people that disagree about a completely different subject. You are simply forming a large set of people that disagree with you and assume anyone in that set are also members of every set that disagrees on any subject. Your thinking is erroneous. Kawasicki said:
Esceptico said:
The IPCC doesn’t undertake science but the reports are drafted by scientists, drawing on peer reviewed papers. Each report is a reasonable summary of our understanding of climate change at that point with a range of predictions for the future. I am well aware that Deniers dismiss the IPCC by pointing out some weaknesses. I am well used to those tactics from anti-evolutionists who leap on any minor inconsistency and try to claim that all of evolution is bunk.
I don’t dismiss the IPCC reports because of some minor inconsistencies. I dismiss the reports because they’re junk.Likely?
Gadgetmac said:
Kawasicki said:
Esceptico said:
The IPCC doesn’t undertake science but the reports are drafted by scientists, drawing on peer reviewed papers. Each report is a reasonable summary of our understanding of climate change at that point with a range of predictions for the future. I am well aware that Deniers dismiss the IPCC by pointing out some weaknesses. I am well used to those tactics from anti-evolutionists who leap on any minor inconsistency and try to claim that all of evolution is bunk.
I don’t dismiss the IPCC reports because of some minor inconsistencies. I dismiss the reports because they’re junk.Likely?
Kawasicki said:
Gadgetmac said:
Kawasicki said:
Esceptico said:
The IPCC doesn’t undertake science but the reports are drafted by scientists, drawing on peer reviewed papers. Each report is a reasonable summary of our understanding of climate change at that point with a range of predictions for the future. I am well aware that Deniers dismiss the IPCC by pointing out some weaknesses. I am well used to those tactics from anti-evolutionists who leap on any minor inconsistency and try to claim that all of evolution is bunk.
I don’t dismiss the IPCC reports because of some minor inconsistencies. I dismiss the reports because they’re junk.Likely?
https://archive.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/mauthors.php?q=...
Just look at the lists. They are truly global drawing from climate scientists from not just major countries but developing countries too.
For each chapter is seems they have two coordinating experts, about a dozen lead authors and three reviewing editors. So each IPCC report will involve hundreds of experts.
Where is your evidence that they don’t review all peer reviewed papers? That they deliberately ignore evidence? You think that academics are willing to lie and hide evidence? Yes there have been cases of individual academics doing that but it beggars believe that you think hundreds of independent academics working together would do so. And it isn’t other reputable climate scientists that pick this up...just angry blokes on the internet?
Why don’t you write a proper expose? There are huge vested interests that work against climate science and would lap up your report (Fox News, Sky News, the US president). But of course you won’t respond because every time I’ve asked you to put up or shut up you don’t answer the question. Normally you raise an unrelated point to deflect it.
Esceptico said:
The IPCC doesn’t write the reports. The coordinate the writing. If you bothered to look you would see that for each chapter of the report there are different climate experts. Below the link for just one chapter:
https://archive.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/mauthors.php?q=...
Just look at the lists. They are truly global drawing from climate scientists from not just major countries but developing countries too.
For each chapter is seems they have two coordinating experts, about a dozen lead authors and three reviewing editors. So each IPCC report will involve hundreds of experts.
Where is your evidence that they don’t review all peer reviewed papers? That they deliberately ignore evidence? You think that academics are willing to lie and hide evidence? Yes there have been cases of individual academics doing that but it beggars believe that you think hundreds of independent academics working together would do so. And it isn’t other reputable climate scientists that pick this up...just angry blokes on the internet?
Why don’t you write a proper expose? There are huge vested interests that work against climate science and would lap up your report (Fox News, Sky News, the US president). But of course you won’t respond because every time I’ve asked you to put up or shut up you don’t answer the question. Normally you raise an unrelated point to deflect it.
Each IPCC report involves hundreds of climate scientists. How many of them are sceptical of CAGW? How many of them think that increasing CO2 has advantages?https://archive.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/mauthors.php?q=...
Just look at the lists. They are truly global drawing from climate scientists from not just major countries but developing countries too.
For each chapter is seems they have two coordinating experts, about a dozen lead authors and three reviewing editors. So each IPCC report will involve hundreds of experts.
Where is your evidence that they don’t review all peer reviewed papers? That they deliberately ignore evidence? You think that academics are willing to lie and hide evidence? Yes there have been cases of individual academics doing that but it beggars believe that you think hundreds of independent academics working together would do so. And it isn’t other reputable climate scientists that pick this up...just angry blokes on the internet?
Why don’t you write a proper expose? There are huge vested interests that work against climate science and would lap up your report (Fox News, Sky News, the US president). But of course you won’t respond because every time I’ve asked you to put up or shut up you don’t answer the question. Normally you raise an unrelated point to deflect it.
I don’t need to write an expose, it would be as pointless as writing an expose that the sun rises in the morning. The IPCC was founded on the premise that significant human induced climate change exists. Do you think they are objective? Do you think a “Department of Climate Change” at a university will be objective? Do you think that science requires an objective outlook?
Have I answered your question?
Why don’t deniers feel an obligation to have burden of proof? Seems to me preferred defence for a denier is to attack the methodology of the other side.
Where is the institute that argues for the deniers side? Is there one? Fossil fuel industry is a billion pound industry so it’s not for lack of motive. Who is the most prominent denier organisation or scientist? Do deniers even care? If attack is there preferred defence I guess no need to know this stuff
Where is the institute that argues for the deniers side? Is there one? Fossil fuel industry is a billion pound industry so it’s not for lack of motive. Who is the most prominent denier organisation or scientist? Do deniers even care? If attack is there preferred defence I guess no need to know this stuff
Kawasicki said:
Esceptico said:
The IPCC doesn’t write the reports. The coordinate the writing. If you bothered to look you would see that for each chapter of the report there are different climate experts. Below the link for just one chapter:
https://archive.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/mauthors.php?q=...
Just look at the lists. They are truly global drawing from climate scientists from not just major countries but developing countries too.
For each chapter is seems they have two coordinating experts, about a dozen lead authors and three reviewing editors. So each IPCC report will involve hundreds of experts.
Where is your evidence that they don’t review all peer reviewed papers? That they deliberately ignore evidence? You think that academics are willing to lie and hide evidence? Yes there have been cases of individual academics doing that but it beggars believe that you think hundreds of independent academics working together would do so. And it isn’t other reputable climate scientists that pick this up...just angry blokes on the internet?
Why don’t you write a proper expose? There are huge vested interests that work against climate science and would lap up your report (Fox News, Sky News, the US president). But of course you won’t respond because every time I’ve asked you to put up or shut up you don’t answer the question. Normally you raise an unrelated point to deflect it.
Each IPCC report involves hundreds of climate scientists. How many of them are sceptical of CAGW? How many of them think that increasing CO2 has advantages?https://archive.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/mauthors.php?q=...
Just look at the lists. They are truly global drawing from climate scientists from not just major countries but developing countries too.
For each chapter is seems they have two coordinating experts, about a dozen lead authors and three reviewing editors. So each IPCC report will involve hundreds of experts.
Where is your evidence that they don’t review all peer reviewed papers? That they deliberately ignore evidence? You think that academics are willing to lie and hide evidence? Yes there have been cases of individual academics doing that but it beggars believe that you think hundreds of independent academics working together would do so. And it isn’t other reputable climate scientists that pick this up...just angry blokes on the internet?
Why don’t you write a proper expose? There are huge vested interests that work against climate science and would lap up your report (Fox News, Sky News, the US president). But of course you won’t respond because every time I’ve asked you to put up or shut up you don’t answer the question. Normally you raise an unrelated point to deflect it.
I don’t need to write an expose, it would be as pointless as writing an expose that the sun rises in the morning. The IPCC was founded on the premise that significant human induced climate change exists. Do you think they are objective? Do you think a “Department of Climate Change” at a university will be objective? Do you think that science requires an objective outlook?
Have I answered your question?
Never mind chaps, there's going to be an Citizen's Panel of 110 lucky people who will get to meet in Birmingham and tell us what to do. That will fix it. And don't forget the 30,000 delegates all going to have a jolly in Madrid.
The best thing would be to stop feeding the troll and leave him to mutter in his cave.
The best thing would be to stop feeding the troll and leave him to mutter in his cave.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff