about climate hysterics is that they always go back to "the data is overwhelming" argument. Which oddly enough is also used to discredit data that runs counter to their claims.
"All point clearly to anthropogenic global warming (and associated feeback loops). This is all well settled- to the point of scientific consensus. "
About that consensus . . .
http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/"Past events- with rapid rates of change have occurred before- with dire results to biodiversity. No reason whatsoever to think that won't happen again."
What caused those past events? Stone age coal plants?
"Your arguments here remind me very much of what I see on the gun forum- with people demanding perfect data in every instance before they'll even consider the obvious- that guns in the house make the household more dangerous and more likely to experience a tragedy than those without. "
Actually yes, there are plenty of similarities. Gun opponents often try to pass off flawed research as legit then claim a consensus (everyone knows guns are the leading cause of . . . ) where none exists.
"Same sort of obfuscation via some few minutae- missing the bigger picture entirely."
If the minutia were used to form that bigger picture? What then?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
