Comments on: Are climate scientists the new evangelists? http://blogs.earthsky.org/lindsaypatterson/global-warming/04175/are-climate-scientists-the-new-evangelicals/ Learning to love science. Thu, 28 Aug 2008 01:32:04 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Walt http://blogs.earthsky.org/lindsaypatterson/global-warming/04175/are-climate-scientists-the-new-evangelicals/#comment-38 Walt Sun, 06 May 2007 03:23:57 +0000 http://blogs.earthsky.org/lindsaypatterson/global-warming/04175/are-climate-scientists-the-new-evangelicals/#comment-38 Should we be talking about "Global Warming"? I say yes, just as we should be talking about anything that effects our life. Some say that this weather change is only a cycle, such as the "little Ice Age" of some years ago (before I was around). I only know one thing. Since I moved "up North" the winters have been, on the average, warmer. I'm a weather observer for National Weather Service, so maybe I notice this more than others. I don't know how much warmer, but you would have be asleep not to notice the difference. Not to discus this concern is no more than hiding your head in the sand or under the covers,( a little safer). It's here, it's not a religion, it is an observable fact. What causes this phenomenon, and what (if anything) can be done about it should be (or must be) discused by all concerned. thats my 2 cents worth. Walt (the trouble maker) Should we be talking about “Global Warming”? I say yes, just as we should be talking about anything that effects our life. Some say that this weather change is only a cycle, such as the “little Ice Age” of some years ago (before I was around). I only know one thing. Since I moved “up North” the winters have been, on the average, warmer. I’m a weather observer for National Weather Service, so maybe I notice this more than others. I don’t know how much warmer, but you would have be asleep not to notice the difference. Not to discus this concern is no more than hiding your head in the sand or under the covers,( a little safer). It’s here, it’s not a religion, it is an observable fact. What causes this phenomenon, and what (if anything) can be done about it should be (or must be) discused by all concerned. thats my 2 cents worth.

Walt (the trouble maker)

]]> By: orionkriegman http://blogs.earthsky.org/lindsaypatterson/global-warming/04175/are-climate-scientists-the-new-evangelicals/#comment-11 orionkriegman Tue, 24 Apr 2007 20:23:14 +0000 http://blogs.earthsky.org/lindsaypatterson/global-warming/04175/are-climate-scientists-the-new-evangelicals/#comment-11 I agree, the arguments of skeptics keep shifting as the evidence of global warming mounts. Perhaps the term "skeptic" is a misnomer, since the die-hard deniers of global warming aren't operating from a skeptical mindset, but are rather dogmatically convinced of their positions and frequently parrot half-baked arguments or recycle debunked myths. A skeptic is someone who wants to examine all the evidence before believing outlandish claims. In this sense the IPCC is composed of skeptics, and that is what it has taken such a long time to reach a clear consensus on the matter. I agree, the arguments of skeptics keep shifting as the evidence of global warming mounts.

Perhaps the term “skeptic” is a misnomer, since the die-hard deniers of global warming aren’t operating from a skeptical mindset, but are rather dogmatically convinced of their positions and frequently parrot half-baked arguments or recycle debunked myths.

A skeptic is someone who wants to examine all the evidence before believing outlandish claims. In this sense the IPCC is composed of skeptics, and that is what it has taken such a long time to reach a clear consensus on the matter.

]]> By: deborahbyrd http://blogs.earthsky.org/lindsaypatterson/global-warming/04175/are-climate-scientists-the-new-evangelicals/#comment-7 deborahbyrd Thu, 19 Apr 2007 03:04:08 +0000 http://blogs.earthsky.org/lindsaypatterson/global-warming/04175/are-climate-scientists-the-new-evangelicals/#comment-7 It seems to me that, until recently, those who did not believe in anthropogenic global warming were saying that there was no "consensus" among scientists on this subject. Consider one of the links that Lindsay provided in this post ... Tom DeWeese in his 2005 article called <a href="http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4139" rel="nofollow">The New Religion is Global Warming,</a> wrote, "In particular, my [earlier] article stated that there is no scientific evidence to support claims of man-made global warming. I pointed out that there is division among scientists and that there is no 'consensus' among them." Now the <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/" rel="nofollow">IPCC</a> has provided the very consensus that global warming skeptics said was lacking. And now that scientific consensus clearly exists, we hear that "consensus doesn't matter" and that "science doesn't operate by consensus." Personally, I think these arguments - "no consensus," "global warming is religion," consensus doesn't matter" - are all just (if you'll forgive the expression) so much hot air. Deborah It seems to me that, until recently, those who did not believe in anthropogenic global warming were saying that there was no “consensus” among scientists on this subject.

Consider one of the links that Lindsay provided in this post … Tom DeWeese in his 2005 article called The New Religion is Global Warming,
wrote, “In particular, my [earlier] article stated that there is no scientific evidence to support claims of man-made global warming. I pointed out that there is division among scientists and that there is no ‘consensus’ among them.”

Now the IPCC has provided the very consensus that global warming skeptics said was lacking.

And now that scientific consensus clearly exists, we hear that “consensus doesn’t matter” and that “science doesn’t operate by consensus.”

Personally, I think these arguments - “no consensus,” “global warming is religion,” consensus doesn’t matter” - are all just (if you’ll forgive the expression) so much hot air.

Deborah

]]>