And Belaji, you have to know better than to think the US and Europe are the world.  Australia is in the midst of a 13 year drought!

Quote:


      -Ronald Bailey 
Correspondent (now Science Editor) for Reason Magazine
http://reason.com/archives/2005/08/11/were-all-global-warmers-now

If even someone from Reason Magazine thinks this, isn't time to "put away childish things?" 

I mean, which is more likely, you're wrong or that Bailey has been snowed after doubting it for years and now buys into a conspiracy perpetrated by scientists in order to get either research grants or do favors for their "obvious" friends in the Nuclear Industry??

kylemeister wrote on 02/20/10 at 17:32:12:


Damn!  I knew it was decredico, but I wanted to be the one to point it out!  But nice catch, kylemeister.  First our chessfriend is a journalist and intimate acquaintance of leading scientists, now he himself is a scientist.  One thing's for sure.  This guy is so convinced that global warming is a fake that he's willing to tell ridiculous lies to prove the point.

Too many false dichotomies on the AGW side. That seems to be one major tipoff.  Ceating dichotomies in science equals bad science.  I've been involved in atmospheric sciences since 1967.  The globe is cooling and has been for 12 to 20 years.  Apologies are owed to people who have repeatedly pointed out that the data is not conclusive.  Screaming zealots here on this site have refused to accept there is not just one side to the issue and have swallowed the pablum, and revealed their own ignorances to the data sets and conclusions that could be drawn legitimately. I live a completely reduced lifestyle, like the ones most AGW proponents wished they lived and preach.  The climate will always be changing,  It is dynamic.  AGW is a bastardization of the scientific process and methodology and that is why they are divorcing themselves from that specific piece of rhetoric and going now with "Climate Change."  And yes, anyone that now says the climate is not changing is wrong, it is.  We are at 350 ppm and rising, no doubt, highest levels in 800,00 years.  But, what it means has never been conclusive, and that is the larger point the AGW Religion still refuses to accept.

~ Theodore Hand

Antillian wrote on 02/16/10 at 13:55:05:


Yes of course. My main quibble with GW, as I've mentioned before, is that it gets almost all the attention and there are so many other issues that seem much more urgent: plastic pollution of the sea, industrial over fishing, world population rising, vanishing rainforests, extinction of species and many more, moreover almost on a weekly/monthly basis you hear about another newly discovered threat, usually caused somehow by mankind's greed or stupidity.

Taljechin, I am sure that I am not alone in having put my money where my mouth is.  I won't go into details, but yes, I am sure that many if not most people here have made some sort of change in their lifestyle to become more in synch with their environment.  Whether that's due to global warming, cultural attitudes, or some other eco-friendly reason is beyond my ken.

Thank you (Willempie) for nicely describing of what I meant with "from a political view"; especially the point of presenting conclusions as harder than they really are. I have always maintained that there is no scientific evidence - for the time being assuming that something like that is possible, which is already questionable - for AGW. What's more, I don't think such evidence can be delivered before the earth actually has heated up. This is a principled point inherent in the use of mathematical models. Anyone who has seen som simple mathematical model will recognize the problem; it's in the parameters. They tend to get softer as soon as you try to get the model preciser.

I even have a bigger problem with many "climate sceptics", the ones who are not sceptical at all but only accept information that confirms their distrust. Last two years I have read the non-sequitur "there is a weak point in the climatological research so the AGW is false" way too often. One of those guys - not on this forum - even dared to turn this against me when I complained about it, as if I stated that every IPCC mistake actally confirmed AGW. Arguing against such stupidity is hopeless.
And that is exactly why I stayed out of the debate here for a long time. Reading how Markovich and S_F got annoyed was fun though.