Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Wildcat]

Would you go to a bad sandwich shop twice.

 

Which is a very good reason not to believe the deniers. I trust you won't be sourcing info from Watts, Delingpole, Singer, Ball, Bennet, ClimateAudit etc etc again then?

Edited January 19, 2010 by Wildcat

[Lockjaw]

To put in context the mistake. Various commentators have described the mistake as central, when in context clearly it is not.

 

I don't accept your biblical analogy. Do you need to understand brain surgey or rocket science to trust the experts?

 

Poor analogy there, Wildcat. Brain surgeons and rocket scientists can easily demonstrate their abilities. In that respect they don't require trust.

 

If, however a person came along saying they had proof that a certain, large, series of actions would cure a major disease I had as long as I made certain sacrifices and then just one of his claims was shown to be incorrect I think it would be acceptable and understandable for my trust in the remaining claims to diminish.

[retep]

Which is a very good reason not to believe the deniers. I trust you won't be sourcing info from Watts, Delingpole, Singer, Ball, Bennet, ClimateAudit etc etc again then?

 

Why not they seem to have more of a finger on the pulse than your links, at least they bring it out in the open.

[truman]

There were several million Jews in Nazi Germany... rather more than the 40 "scientists" that don't agree with the consensus on climate change.

 

 

40? Have you seen the signatories on the links I gave you earlier...? There's a lot more than 40

[truman]

A consensus amongst experts on a subject is normally a good indication for the layman of what to believe.

 

 

There is no consensus....

[Wildcat]

Why not they seem to have more of a finger on the pulse than your links, at least they bring it out in the open.

 

Despite each one of them having got their analysis so wrong, it is hard to credit it as stupidity and appears more to be willful intent to mislead. Your continued trust in discredited sources shows poor judgment.

 

Ohh and by "open" you mean they debate on heavily monitored websites that delete opposing views if they allow them at all, unlike realclimate for example, which allows deniers to post.

Edited January 19, 2010 by Wildcat

[Wildcat]

There is no consensus....

 

What else do you call 97% of climate scientists actively publishing climate papers?

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

[Wildcat]

Poor analogy there, Wildcat. Brain surgeons and rocket scientists can easily demonstrate their abilities. In that respect they don't require trust.

 

If, however a person came along saying they had proof that a certain, large, series of actions would cure a major disease I had as long as I made certain sacrifices and then just one of his claims was shown to be incorrect I think it would be acceptable and understandable for my trust in the remaining claims to diminish.

 

Just as Climate Change scientists can demonstrate their results:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/models-2/

 

You might diminish your trust but to what degree? I would suggest that an error amounting to 2 lines in a large body of work, would reduce your trust by an insignificant amount. Especially considering the context of the mistake was not a scientific error.

[Cyclone]

Those models would be great, if they weren't based on 'adjusted' real temperatures that artificially create the warming trend that doesn't exist.

[retep]

Despite each one of them having got their analysis so wrong, it is hard to credit it as stupidity and appears more to be willful intent to mislead. Your continued trust in discredited sources shows poor judgment.

 

Ohh and by "open" you mean they debate on heavily monitored websites that delete opposing views if they allow them at all, unlike realclimate for example, which allows deniers to post.

 

You mean they don't say what you want to hear.