Freudian slip?

---

 

Keep your cross dressing to yourself and its off topic

One of the most concerning aspects of the dicussion on this forum is that AGW denail seems to go along with other spects of antiscience such as denial of CFCs causing the ozone hole, denial of the adverse health effects of asbestos, insecticides, passive smoking, evolution etc etc . This is a challenge for better science education in schools and through the media of the public in general.

With the exception of CFC's which is another can of worms, then probably not all of us sceptics share the same outlook. Although evolution in some aspects is another can of worms, chicken, egg and all that. 

 

It's interesting that a number of people very prominent in their refutal of the idea human activity affects climate, also refute evolution.

Coincidence?

 

Edit: btw, the order is worm, egg, chicken

---

Evolution cannot be refuted as it's an ongoing process, what is debatable is the origins of man. No concrete proof either way I'm afraid. Oh dear I've got an awful feeling this is going the way of many debates on here, round and round and round and round, stop now I want to get off!! 

Stick with it Cycles.

Some here, are experts at thread wrecking if they don't like your opinions.

Watch out for the Deep Green Brigade.

At least one should post here soon with indignation.

,Don't let them get you down.I think they are generally known to most posters here as pains in the you know what?.

No chance of that Aimsir, as some on here would love to see me disappear/banned , due to my diligent  determination for the truth to be told.

Most do make a degree of sense.

Some are just nuts and despise humans and even themselves sadly.Imo.

No future no hope.no ideas for the future.bad bad all the way.

Sad really.

 Oh I agree some of the warmers on here are very good posters, some are a little OTT, and then some just hate all of mankind. It's what makes the world go round though. 

Saying if you don't go along with the supposed  'consensus' opinion of imminent disasterous warming means you probably have irrational opinions on various other topics is rather a irrational viewpoint.
It assumes for a start that the 'consensus' was not manufactured in some way.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/16/manufacturing-consensus/

---

You spoken to a pistachio or an almond lately?  You'd be surprised what they have to say

---

As opposed to promoting catastrophic global cooling .....

---

Warmers for want of a term are correct.The globe is warming.

Whether the thin veneer of damned dispicable mankind is responsible is another question.

The IPCC' otherwise known as the devils incarnate of all things climate. IMO of course! 

 

I was careful in the words I used and I agree with Curry where she quotes

The establishment of consensus by the IPCC is no longer as important to governments as a full exploration of uncertainty.

My point is not about uncertainty in the magnitude warming, the frequency of disease from various forms of asbestos or whether the evolutionary line leading to man is fully established but the refusal to accept the clear and established science, CO2 causes warming asbestos causes lung disease, smoking causes cancer but the rejection of physical or biological science not because of a challenge to the science itself based on a thorough understanding but based on ideology, religious or political. It seems to me that this is quite common particularly across the pond but on here too.

I think this is a key issue our society faces

 

Actually I think the key issue we face is the abuse of those who try to put the science into a perspective that might lead to less draconian 'solutions' than others would prefer.

And then there is the issue as to whether the motives of some of those 'others' are self serving.

It isn't new, it has always been so and always will be.

That's really highly amusing.  Your superficially open statement is somewhat undermined by the subsequent demonstration of your particular bias Stephen.   "Less draconian solutions" indeed - draconian only in your mind and only because you don't accept the predictions or the need to reduce our use of fossil fuels.

Something else that isn't new is the tenacity of a minority who refuse to accept the facts and try to picture themselves as some sort of elite who know better than everyone else.

From this and other posts you have made I suspect there is a fair slice of 'self-serving' behaviour at work.

---

You can be relied upon to personalise general comments every time.

Is there a problem with that?  When you make statements such as:

I think the key issue we face is the abuse of those who try to put the science into a perspective that might lead to less draconian 'solutions' than others would prefer

And then there is the issue as to whether the motives of some of those 'others' are self serving.

 

What exactly is the basis for this failed attempt to claim the moral high ground?

---

I saw a discussion today that suggested the low pressure in the Arctic would slow the melt in the short term (I agree this is likely) but ultimately would serve to export ice out of the Arctic basin (this referring to the upcoming several weeks only). Any thoughts?

We are past Solstice so the sun is already on the wain across the high Arctic but the sea is toasty warm (4 to 5 c anoms in the open water) Any sloshing around of that water can increase the melt of well fragmented pack. Any winds will create swells that will swamp small floes and create 'top' as well as basal melt.

I would imagine a temp slow down in ice melt but then another period of 'rapid melt' as floes melt out completely. Any cloud cover will insulate the warm water and limit it's radiation out to space.

---

Given AGW is not 100% proven, could this not be potentially risky - lol! The irony is that we could go from what could be natural climate variability to AGC...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2037104/Global-warming-Can-balloon-size-Wembley-stadium-stop-it.html

EDIT: Yes... I should clarify. 'Given that the degree of AGW and it's impacts are not 100 proven...' 

---