The Global Warming Pause (good summary)

[lawrocket 3]

Citing different groups people and providing a percentage of whose who vote in favor of it as proof that politics are not involved .

QED.

And if every one of them believes that climate change is already and will be catastrophic, then I'd like you to show me that 97% agree. People like judith Curry and Pat Michaels also are in that 97%. As is Spencer, who believes that CO2 has some influence but not as much as natural variation.

Which is a better indicator of ho politics has shaped this discussion.

Don't believe in cataclysmic AGW? Then you are a denier.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,109]

>And if every one of them believes that climate change is already and will be
>catastrophic, then I'd like you to show me that 97% agree.

Almost no scientist claims that, nor should they. That's something you made up.

[DanG 1]

If you define 'alarmists' as people who say:

Quote

"All warming is man-made, and only disaster for the planet will result, and no adverse weather event shall be viewed as natural any more and fossil fuels mist be stopped at all costs or we're fucked"

Then it's rather trivial to claim that alarmists all think that all warming is man-made, and only disaster for the planet will result, and no adverse weather event shall be viewed as natural any more and fossil fuels mist be stopped at all costs or we're fucked.

The problem with your posting history is that you sometimes refer to anyone who believes climate change is real and a problem that needs to be addressed as alarmists. Then, in another post, you'll throw the rest of the bullshit in there, and then get all indignant about those damn alarmists.

Most people are neither alarmists nor hardcore deniers. Characterizing everyone as one or the other is just a silly debating tactic that's frankly quite transparent.

- Dan G

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]Almost no scientist claims that, nor should they. That's something you made up.

[billvon 3,109]

>You're right. No credible scientist would suggest that climate change is something
>we should freak out about. That would be silly.

I didn't say that. I said ALMOST no scientist. You can always find 3% of any group to subscribe to any silly claim.

>Unless it's the new head of NASA GISS. Really. Take a look at this. Seriously.
>Why is the head of GISS suggesting that we should be freaking out?

?? He's not. He's reposting a dumb joke that someone tweeted.

>Sometime you'd think climate alarmists would tone down the alarm. "Turn it to eleven!"

And at times you think deniers would at least admit that the climate was changing; they'd be taken more seriously.

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]The problem with your posting history is that you sometimes refer to anyone who believes climate change is real and a problem that needs to be addressed as alarmists.