Turns out Hansen warming predictions dead wrong!

[JBvM]

Jump to what 2010?

Published on line 14 May 2010
Keywords: Consensus - Climate change - Global warming - Scientists’ perceptions

abstract:

This paper first reviews previous work undertaken to assess the level of scientific consensus concerning climate change, concluding that studies of scientific consensus concerning climate change have tended to measure different things. Three dimensions of consensus are determined: manifestation, attribution and legitimation. Consensus concerning these dimensions are explored in detail using a time series of data from surveys of climate scientists. In most cases, little difference is discerned between those who have participated in the IPCC process and those who have not. Consensus, however, in both groups does not amount to unanimity. Results also suggest rather than a single group proclaiming the IPCC does not represent consensus, there are now two groups, one claiming the IPCC makes overestimations (a group previously labeled skeptics, deniers, etc.) and a relatively new formation of a group (many of whom have participated in the IPCC process) proclaiming that IPCC tends to underestimate some climate related phenomena

http://www.rescuethatfrog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Bray-2010.pdf

 

[JBvM]

great quote "That is, the intention of the paper is to suggest that the science of climate change be conducted devoid of dogma and politics, and be returned to the tenets of Science; beneficial debate and beneficial skepticism." Now is there only one side stuck with dogma and politics?

 

[JBvM]

Then we move away from one set of researchers that some people cherry pick as experts at divining what is realy and really not a consensus

Climate Change: A Profile of U.S. Climate Scientists' Perspectives
Abstract
Climate scientists have played a significant role in investigating global climate change. In the U.S., a debate has swirled about whether a consensus on climate change exists among reputable scientists and this has entered the policy process. In order to better understand the views of U.S. climate scientists, we conducted an empirical survey of U.S. climate scientists (N=468) in 2005, and compared the results with the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) physical science report and policy summaries. Our results reveal that survey respondents generally agree about the nature, causes, and consequences of climate change, and are in agreement with IPCC findings. We also found that there is strong support for a variety of policy initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

the above is one link from a WAPO article in 2013
Cherry-picking one survey to discredit a survey of scientists on climate change
Congressman cherry-picks climate change data

http://bush.tamu.edu/istpp/scholarship/journals/ClimateScientistsPerspectives_ClimaticChange.pdf

http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf

It all goes on and on. But one curious things is that one side is always holier than thou insisting they alone have no dogmatic and partisan political agendas. And not even their source claims it is one side with any dogma or political agenda

 

[JBvM]

The issue gets lost in a partisan blindness that insists on consensus as a 100% agreement. It leaves out even a general consensus.

As an example, when men first went on a mission to set foot on the moon: Certain aspects of how the LEM would and would not work, there was a general consensus, but on particulars there was if not disagreement, than differing opinions on a set of known unknowns. If there were no general consensus we were not going to send those men to their deaths.

and for me, saying a science isn't settled is disingenuous, because although for decades people would agree certain aspects of Einstein's formulas seemed to be settled science (a general consensus), they were in fact by consensus settled science, until science discovered they weren't. So in a very important sense, science is never really settled in a way that is absolute. If it were, it would be dogma and not science.

When scientists say science is settled, they are not saying it is absolute. In science, it is a given that everything is open to being revised, even Eisnstein's formulas

forgive me channeling my inner Donald Rumsfeld.

 

[abu afak]

....and for me, saying a science isn't settled is disingenuous, because although for decades people would agree certain aspects of Einstein's formulas seemed to be settled science (a general consensus), they were in fact by consensus settled science, until science discovered they weren't. So in a very important sense, science is never really settled in a way that is absolute. If it were, it would be dogma and not science.
...

This is very true and comes up all the time.
The even closer analogy was the one on cigarette smoking causing cancer.
The industry side held out for "proof" (which I don't think we even have now), refusing to accept high correlation and other logical elements.
But now it is accepted.

Science doesn't deal in "proofs", only math does.
Scientific Theories (not the same as general usage of 'theory') is the highest certainty one can achieve in Science.
They ARE being affirmed over time, as is warming (the thermometer and Sea Level)

Only interrupted by an industry and Right Wing populist movement that is NOT science based, any more than the Evolution "debate" is.

The 'Tell'
You'll note the main 2 Science section posters here are me and Old Rocks. (AGW accepters).
The others are conservative Politicos not really interested in science.
(when was the last of SkookerAssbil or Sunsethomo?)
As a science poster I've noticed this on other boards too.
'They' have virtually NO Science Section posts.
here I don't have that many yet, but as a percent I'm sure I generally outnumber them 5 or 10 to one.
(also see my record on DP.com for the same pattern. And it's where I created 'Team Science' with 140 members.)
Many don't accept "only-a theory" Evolution either. It's political.
`

 

[JBvM]

....and for me, saying a science isn't settled is disingenuous, because although for decades people would agree certain aspects of Einstein's formulas seemed to be settled science (a general consensus), they were in fact by consensus settled science, until science discovered they weren't. So in a very important sense, science is never really settled in a way that is absolute. If it were, it would be dogma and not science.
...

This is very true and comes up all the time.
The even closer analogy was the one on cigarette smoking causing cancer.
The industry side held out for "proof" (which I don't think we even have now), refusing to accept high correlation and other logical elements.
But now it is accepted.

Science doesn't deal in "proofs", only math does.
Scientific Theories (not the same as general usage of 'theory') is the highest certainty one can achieve in Science.
They ARE being affirmed over time, as is warming (the thermometer and Sea Level)

Only interrupted by an industry and Right Wing populist movement that is NOT science based, any more than the Evolution "debate" is.

The 'Tell'
You'll note the main 2 Science section posters here are me and Old Rocks. (AGW accepters).
The others are Politicos not really interested in science.
(when was the last of SkookerAssbil or Sunsethomo?)
As a science poster I've noticed this on other boards too.
'They' have virtually NO Science Section posts.
here I don't have that many yet, but as a percent I'm sure Igenerally outnumber them 5 or 10 to one.
(also see my record on DP.com for the same pattern.)
Many don't accept "only-a theory" Evolution either. It's political.
`

Like this

The 'Tell'

You'll note the main 2 Science section posters here are me and Old Rocks. (AGW accepters).

The others are Politicos not really interested in science.
(when was the last of SkookerAssbil or Sunsethomo?)

As a science poster I've noticed this on other boards too.
'They' have virtually NO Science Section posts.
here I don't have that many yet, but as a percent I'm sure Igenerally outnumber them 5 or 10 to one.
(also see my record on DP.com for the same pattern.)

Many don't accept "only-a theory" Evolution either. It's political.

 

[flacaltenn]

Well anyone can cherry pick data or questions in order to attempt to discredit a larger point. But that would be disingenuous and downright ignorant on a level most people could form a consensus on

These questions are not "cherry picked".. There are over 100 of them in every paper that Bray/von Storch published. And they are quite succinctly worded and comprehensive. It's the ONLY attempt to HAVE a comprehensive, SCIENTIFIC survey of CC questions that has ever been done. And it's a SERIES of at least 3 polls taken a couple years apart. So it IS the best source of "opinion" on attitudes, opinions and beliefs that exist. BECAUSE it includes all the vital questions that any "consensus" needs to ask..

There is what rational people would CALL consensus on the "soft ball" questions like I said above. But the softball questions don't scratch the surface of the opinion CONFIDENCE when it comes to the many scientific details involved. PARTICULARLY --- there IS a consensus that the science has been politicized and misrepresented. Which is a question that would NEVER BE ASKED by the warmer faithful.

"a question that would NEVER BE ASKED by the warmer faithful?"

you not only divine people's intent, but you belittle scientists as a way of trying to discredit science?

Are you misunderstanding and maybe misrepresenting Hans von Storch and Dennis Bray? Let us start from where von Storch and Bray enter the picture. Okay?



Climate scientists’ views on climate change: a survey
08 Aug 2007 | 15:45 BST | Posted by Olive Heffernan | Category: Communicating Climate Change, Hans von Storch, In the News, Opinion

Hans von Storch and Dennis Bray

In 1996 and 2003 we surveyed the opinions on climate change held by climate scientists. The results of these surveys have been subject to many misuses and erroneous claims. Some have selected individual statements out of context (scroll down to number 5) to bolster their claims, while others have argued that the 2003 part of the survey would be strongly biased by skeptics misusing the online-sampling for multiple submissions.

Climate scientists’ views on climate change: a survey : Climate Feedback

So fucking what... The results I'm showing have been from the LATER AUDITED SURVEYS. For which they have CV and qualifications pre-determined. Why are you hell bent to ATTEMPT to discredit this periodic survey with crap published seven years earlier?

And secondly, it's patently obvious that with all the junk fraudulent "polls" out on a SINGLE question or even where the question is in doubt ---- What makes you think the ZEALOTS behind those frauds would ASK the actual scientists if they "thought the science results have been fairly represented to the public and the world"?

Because OBVIOUSLY -- that misrepresentation is the LARGEST reason why -- this GW crazy train is now permanently off the tracks.

 

[flacaltenn]

Jump to what 2010?

Published on line 14 May 2010
Keywords: Consensus - Climate change - Global warming - Scientists’ perceptions

abstract:

This paper first reviews previous work undertaken to assess the level of scientific consensus concerning climate change, concluding that studies of scientific consensus concerning climate change have tended to measure different things. Three dimensions of consensus are determined: manifestation, attribution and legitimation. Consensus concerning these dimensions are explored in detail using a time series of data from surveys of climate scientists. In most cases, little difference is discerned between those who have participated in the IPCC process and those who have not. Consensus, however, in both groups does not amount to unanimity. Results also suggest rather than a single group proclaiming the IPCC does not represent consensus, there are now two groups, one claiming the IPCC makes overestimations (a group previously labeled skeptics, deniers, etc.) and a relatively new formation of a group (many of whom have participated in the IPCC process) proclaiming that IPCC tends to underestimate some climate related phenomena

http://www.rescuethatfrog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Bray-2010.pdf

You understand that what you're quoting ALSO predates Bray's own real work with von Storch and the more expansive and better QUALIFIED auditing that was done in the last 3 versions. IN FACT, the text quotes sources for data that are ALL outside of Bray's work. And the ONLY question this paper asks is whether IPCC participation is reflective of the larger CChange community opinion. It does not delve into the significance of each question.

IN FACT -- in the latter 3 survey papers, THERE IS a DISTINCTION between IPCC "scientists" who were ECONOMISTS, SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY experts and I assume a few ornithology experts who PUBLISH as "climate change" scientists -- And ACTUAL climate scientists. And in those surveys you DO see a difference on the "softball" questions between IPCC CLIMATE scientists and other IPCC panel members (who OUTNUMBERED the Climate scientists). Because the "science" section of the Interl. Panel on Climate Change PERMANENT members were 2/3 of the IPCC and the "climate scientists" were just the "hired help" whose output was subject to review and revision by experts on penquins and insurance claims.

 

[flacaltenn]

great quote "That is, the intention of the paper is to suggest that the science of climate change be conducted devoid of dogma and politics, and be returned to the tenets of Science; beneficial debate and beneficial skepticism." Now is there only one side stuck with dogma and politics?

great quote "That is, the intention of the paper is to suggest that the science of climate change be conducted devoid of dogma and politics, and be returned to the tenets of Science; beneficial debate and beneficial skepticism." Now is there only one side stuck with dogma and politics?

You had no idea what you were reading did ya? That's a message to the CC community, not to trolls who selectively and DEVIOUSLY quote from scientific papers.. Why didn't you include the NEXT sentences??

That is, the intention of the paper is to suggest that the science
of climate change be conducted devoid of dogma and politics,
and be returned to the tenets of Science; beneficial debate and
beneficial skepticism. When, as is often prematurely claimed,
‘the science is settled’, then, and only then, should the public
and politics enter the fray. What this analysis has disclosed is
that the science is NOT settled and that perhaps beneficial
scientific skepticism, albeit in an infant stage, is growing and
may wrest the issue from the hands of politico quasi-scientific
institutions that have become fashionable in the era of ‘global’
studies. Perhaps apt for a parting comment and the current
state of consensus on climate change is a paraphrase of a
statement made by Lenin’s reference to happiness: Climate change
consensus, as is often reported, is perhaps the
maximum agreement of reality and desire. Given the events
of late 2009, and the ensuing crisis in climate science
concerning transparency, it will be interesting to see whether
the facts will remain constant and the truth will change or the
truth will remain constant and the facts will change.

Bray emphasized the NOT in "NOT settled" and he's conceding that the GLOBAL politico quasi-scientific institutions LIKE the IPCC need to take a seat and chill. Because that is NOT a scientific body --- it WAS a global politico quasi-scientific body with some rented climate scientists that REPORTED to socio-political appointees.

So much for your 2 cent analysis of WHAT IS settled science. It's NOT. No one is pumping out grosser and scarier monthly estimates of the temperatures in 2100 anymore. All that died and you apparently didn't notice.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The thing is Hansen KNEW he was full of shit. It's not something he merely miscalculated or was misguided by faulty data.

He is part of the scam.

And your expertise is in what? In bullshit, that is what your expertise is in. The scam is that deniers like you even have the idiocy to post your nonsense. Dr. Hansen is the world's foremost atmospheric physicist, and you are a willfully ignorant anonymous poster on an internet message board.

He has been proven to be a snake oil salesman like Mann and Trump


.

Says one of the most ignorant asses on this board. LOL Do you know how much your assessment of any scientist in any discipline matters to anyone else in the world? Willfully ignorant asses that despise education do not have much of an audience, other than their peer level down in the same gutter.

Please clue us in as to how much training you've had in science. Let us know what you consider science.

 

[JBvM]

You had no idea what you were reading did ya? That's a message to the CC community, not to trolls who selectively and DEVIOUSLY quote from scientific papers.. Why didn't you include the NEXT sentences??

Of course I did. I left a link to the pdf file. And sadly, the main issue glossed over by people like is "The intention of the paper is to suggest that the science of climate change be conducted devoid of dogma and politics, and be returned to the tenets of Science; beneficial debate and beneficial skepticism."

I also pointed out it was from - Published on line 14 May 2010

The next sentences and the report itself are all there where I left them for all to see. So stop projecting. I attempted to hide nothing. Shame on you

and I added later:
It all goes on and on. But one curious thing is that one side is always holier than thou insisting they alone have no dogmatic and partisan political agendas. And not even their source claims it is one side with any dogma or political agenda

 

[Wyatt earp]

The thing is Hansen KNEW he was full of shit. It's not something he merely miscalculated or was misguided by faulty data.

He is part of the scam.

And your expertise is in what? In bullshit, that is what your expertise is in. The scam is that deniers like you even have the idiocy to post your nonsense. Dr. Hansen is the world's foremost atmospheric physicist, and you are a willfully ignorant anonymous poster on an internet message board.

He has been proven to be a snake oil salesman like Mann and Trump


.

Says one of the most ignorant asses on this board. LOL Do you know how much your assessment of any scientist in any discipline matters to anyone else in the world? Willfully ignorant asses that despise education do not have much of an audience, other than their peer level down in the same gutter.

Please clue us in as to how much training you've had in science. Let us know what you consider science.

He is a hippie tree hugger, all he bitch about his,grand kids ..and smokes weed

 

[JBvM]

So fucking what... The results I'm showing have been from the LATER AUDITED SURVEY

The fucking part of the so what is this: I started out with Are you misunderstanding and maybe misrepresenting Hans von Storch and Dennis Bray? Let us start from where von Storch and Bray enter the picture. Okay?

see? Let us start from where von Storch and Bray enter the picture. Okay?

so attacking me personally for posting some earlier references to data, is disingenuous as your post would lead people to believe I didn't do it on purpose ,with a point in mind, and in a fuller context where I attempted to leave the dogma and political crap that you love so much aside

 

[JBvM]

Immense rains are causing more flash flooding, and experts say it’s getting worse

Immense rains are causing more flash flooding, and experts say it’s getting worse

Inconvenient. Quick head in sand or up ass, whichever is more comfortable

excerpts { Experts say the immense rains — some spawned by tropical ocean waters, others by once-routine thunderstorms — are the product of long-rising air temperatures and an increase in the sheer size of the storms. Because warmer air can hold more water, large storms are dropping far more rain at a faster clip.

Such rains in recent weeks have deluged the Great Lakes region, the Deep South and the suburbs of major cities along the Atlantic coast. Philadelphia, Charlottesville, and Ocean City, Ellicott City and Frederick in Maryland all have experienced major flooding since mid-May. Several locations in Maryland had their wettest May on record, including Baltimore, which tallied more than eight inches, most of which fell in the second half of the month.

“Things are definitely getting more extreme,” said Andreas Prein, an atmospheric scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. “You just have to look at the records. All areas of the continental U.S. have seen increases in peak rainfall rates in the past 50 years. . . . And there is a chance that we are underestimating the risk, actually.” }

 

[skookerasbil]

Immense rains are causing more flash flooding, and experts say it’s getting worse

Immense rains are causing more flash flooding, and experts say it’s getting worse

Inconvenient. Quick head in sand or up ass, whichever is more comfortable

excerpts { Experts say the immense rains — some spawned by tropical ocean waters, others by once-routine thunderstorms — are the product of long-rising air temperatures and an increase in the sheer size of the storms. Because warmer air can hold more water, large storms are dropping far more rain at a faster clip.

Such rains in recent weeks have deluged the Great Lakes region, the Deep South and the suburbs of major cities along the Atlantic coast. Philadelphia, Charlottesville, and Ocean City, Ellicott City and Frederick in Maryland all have experienced major flooding since mid-May. Several locations in Maryland had their wettest May on record, including Baltimore, which tallied more than eight inches, most of which fell in the second half of the month.

“Things are definitely getting more extreme,” said Andreas Prein, an atmospheric scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. “You just have to look at the records. All areas of the continental U.S. have seen increases in peak rainfall rates in the past 50 years. . . . And there is a chance that we are underestimating the risk, actually.” }

Its rain storms s0n....so say the masses who aren't obsessed with the climate. Nobody cares about what the experts are saying... you people fail to comprehend that fact. Experts say lots of things. Some impact the real world....some dont. Experts say smoking causes cancer. Nobody could argue that smoking hasn't significantly decreased in the past 50 years. "Experts" say that in 2018 there are flying rivers due to climate change. More fodder to put on the billboard that a few experts stand in front of with their religious clan to take bows, but nobody else is caring. No impact in the real world. Evidently, most dont concur with the experts...and the evidence is daunting if one is a climate crusader.

Experts say burgers and fries are bad for your health.... but nobody is caring in the real world.!!

For 50 years, experts have told us to eat 12 servings of fruits and veggies! Been in the produce section of the grocery store lately? Yuk....yuk...you could set up a blackjack table and play for hours. Nobody would notice.

Climate science is a hobby for people who don't have real responsibilities in life.

 

[Foxfyre]

Immense rains are causing more flash flooding, and experts say it’s getting worse

Immense rains are causing more flash flooding, and experts say it’s getting worse

Inconvenient. Quick head in sand or up ass, whichever is more comfortable

excerpts { Experts say the immense rains — some spawned by tropical ocean waters, others by once-routine thunderstorms — are the product of long-rising air temperatures and an increase in the sheer size of the storms. Because warmer air can hold more water, large storms are dropping far more rain at a faster clip.

Such rains in recent weeks have deluged the Great Lakes region, the Deep South and the suburbs of major cities along the Atlantic coast. Philadelphia, Charlottesville, and Ocean City, Ellicott City and Frederick in Maryland all have experienced major flooding since mid-May. Several locations in Maryland had their wettest May on record, including Baltimore, which tallied more than eight inches, most of which fell in the second half of the month.

“Things are definitely getting more extreme,” said Andreas Prein, an atmospheric scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. “You just have to look at the records. All areas of the continental U.S. have seen increases in peak rainfall rates in the past 50 years. . . . And there is a chance that we are underestimating the risk, actually.” }

Its rain storms s0n....so say the masses who aren't obsessed with the climate. Nobody cares about what the experts are saying... you people fail to comprehend that fact. Experts say lots of things. Some impact the real world....some dont. Experts say smoking causes cancer. Nobody could argue that smoking hasn't significantly decreased in the past 50 years. "Experts" say that in 2018 there are flying rivers due to climate change. More fodder to put on the billboard that a few experts stand in front of with their religious clan to take bows, but nobody else is caring. No impact in the real world. Evidently, most dont concur with the experts...and the evidence is daunting if one is a climate crusader.

Experts say burgers and fries are bad for your health.... but nobody is caring in the real world.!!

For 50 years, experts have told us to eat 12 servings of fruits and veggies! Been in the produce section of the grocery store lately? Yuk....yuk...you could set up a blackjack table and play for hours. Nobody would notice.

Climate science is a hobby for people who don't have real responsibilities in life.

I don't know the motivation of the non scientists who are AGW religionists on message boards., social media, etc. other than such people invariably support leftist governments unequivocally and without question. And they support those governments controlling more and more liberties and resources toward the goal of some sort of utopia they envision.

As for the AGW scientists, it isn't difficult to believe that their primary motivation is all that lovely grant money they get and/or that their peer group is getting. Any scientist or academic who swims against that tide will be quickly drummed out of the club and becomes a pariah in that community.

And the leftist governments of course are motivated by power and the lust for more and more control over the people.

The WSJ article in the OP that points out how the scientific community misses again and again and again on their AGW predictions is important when evaluating scientific competence. It is as important to evaluate the competence of any theories or speculation being circulated out there re health, economics, culture, environment, etc. as it is to study such things.

Are there any self-proclaimed Democrats/socialists/progressives who are at all on the skeptic side of the debate?

 

[abu afak]

I don't know the motivation of the non scientists who are AGW religionists on message boards., social media, etc. other than such people invariably support leftist governments unequivocally and without question. And they support those governments controlling more and more liberties and resources toward the goal of some sort of utopia they envision.

As for the AGW scientists, it isn't difficult to believe that their primary motivation is all that lovely grant money they get and/or that their peer group is getting. Any scientist or academic who swims against that tide will be quickly drummed out of the club and becomes a pariah in that community.

And the leftist governments of course are motivated by power and the lust for more and more control over the people.

The WSJ article in the OP that points out how the scientific community misses again and again and again on their AGW predictions is important when evaluating scientific competence. It is as important to evaluate the competence of any theories or speculation being circulated out there re health, economics, culture, environment, etc. as it is to study such things.

Are there any self-proclaimed Democrats/socialists/progressives who are at all on the skeptic side of the debate?

Perhaps you should read my post on the last page you stupid ****head.

"...The 'Tell'
You'll note the main 2 Science Section posters here are me and Old Rocks. (AGW accepters).
The others are conservative Politicos not really interested in science.
(when was the last of SkookerAssbil or Sunsethomo?)

As a science poster I've noticed this on other boards too.
'They' have virtually NO Science Section posts.
here I don't have that many yet, but as a percent I'm sure I generally outnumber them 5 or 10 to one.
(also see my record on DP.com for the same pattern. And it's where I created 'Team Science' with 140 members.)
Many don't accept "only-a theory" Evolution either. It's political.""​

When was your last (non-Climate-denying) Science Section post asshole?
Now go back up and bash Obama you non-sci partsian Turd.
`

 

[JBvM]

I don't know the motivation of the non scientists who are AGW religionists on message boards., social media, etc.

Let us take this apart. Let the Show Begin

You claim you 'don't know the motivation' of a group of people.

You then state you know they are 'religionists' for a cause. That cause being AWG or is it WAG or is it WGA or is it AGW (I get confused when people who are obsessed with others they like to denigrate, feign respect when using inside lingo and acronyms, or engage in euphemism to oh so innocently describe people).

Would you claim you do not know what motivates another be a Religious?

 

[JBvM]

1) I don't know the motivation of the non scientists who are AGW religionists on message boards., social media, etc. other than such people invariably support leftist governments unequivocally and without question. And they support those governments controlling more and more liberties and resources toward the goal of some sort of utopia they envision.

2) As for the AGW scientists, it isn't difficult to believe that their primary motivation is all that lovely grant money they get and/or that their peer group is getting. Any scientist or academic who swims against that tide will be quickly drummed out of the club and becomes a pariah in that community.

3) And the leftist governments of course are motivated by power and the lust for more and more control over the people.

4) The WSJ article in the OP that points out how the scientific community misses again and again and again on their AGW predictions is important when evaluating scientific competence. It is as important to evaluate the competence of any theories or speculation being circulated out there re health, economics, culture, environment, etc. as it is to study such things.

5) Are there any self-proclaimed Democrats/socialists/progressives who are at all on the skeptic side of the debate?

5) Logic and reason dictate there should be. To assume not, is to portray yourself as having knowledge to the contrary.

1) You suggest people who are non scientists, who believe a prevailing consensus on the science itself, cannot be skeptical. Skepticism does not rule out believing something with caveat. Then we have they where you claiming to know what is motivating people, because you know what it is they want.

Do you have evidence to support you claim that people who support the AWG "invariably support leftist governments unequivocally and without question?" Would it be you are really addressing motivation here?

Can YOU point to something that proves people who are non scientists are supporting some unnamed leftist governments plans to control "more and more liberties and resources toward the goal of some sort of utopia they envision?"

I can't go on. This is such nonsense it isn't even funny

 

[skookerasbil]

Lol....this thread is starting to become a spider web of non-sensical drivel.

JB....s0n....what's up with the spectacular run-on sentences? I'm lost by, "Do you...."