AmericanPapist Comments
Thanks, really interesting video. I've not heard enough science on the whole climate change thing, so it is good to hear this man. I'd be interested in hearing scientists from the other side, too. Glad he's addressing the points on science instead of mudslinging as has happened in most coverage of AGW.
The USCCB will probably join the left-wing loons on this subject. Global warming is probably more important to them than the care of souls. Tom
The "Australian Environment Foundation" is a front group. It actually is part of the "Institure of Public Affairs", a right wing think tank.
I realise that you have spent all of 3 seconds actually looking into the facts of the matter after making up your mind because of right wing religious and political leanings, but you really do look quite idiotic when you put up stuff like this and "The Great Global Warming Swindle" as worthy of consideration. You'd realise this if you had done your homework.
Your sober and wise demeanour doesn't work when you rely on claptrap as your bluffer's guide. Grow up, and educate yourself. Please note: that doesn't mean you'll definitely come out the side with a changed thesis. Just that you won't look like a dupe of crackpots.
Thanks for responding to the scientific claims made by the scientist, instead of cheaply trying to discredit his motivations.
Carbon Based Life Form:
Is your side of the debate so pure and free from politics that you can seriously attack the political motivations of your enemy?
Really, in the realm of theoretical science is there any other specific field where one side says "My science is the only good science, and all other science that disagrees is junk?" Talk about doctrinaire.
WAC
Thanks for responding to the scientific claims made by the scientist
You wouldn't know what the scientific claims made by the scientist are. You wouldn't even know what his speciality is. (Here's a hint: it's not climatology). That's why your sophistry on this issue rings hollow, and you are instantly recognisable as a dupe of crackpots.
Absolutely everything this guy says can be addressed by the many issues spoken about here:-
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
You would do yourself a tremendous service by going through it. Therefore, when the next piece of "devastating" "evidence" pops up, you'll know that getting all schoolgirl giddy about it makes you look uninformed. I am not AT ALL saying you should take the counter arguments as gospel, but at least you'd be aware of them
AND I AM PUTTING THIS IN CAPITALS SO YOU AND WAC CANNOT MISS IT: I PERSONALLY DON'T FEEL THAT HUMAN FORCED CLIMATE CHANGE HAS BEEN PROVEN. But your pretending to be a wise heterodox while you rely on partisan junk is an easily seen through charade.
Is your side of the debate so pure and free from politics that you can seriously attack the political motivations of your enemy?
When those motivations are so ridiculously clear and totally dominate any semblance of scientific detachment, it's an extremely important factor.
Help me out, what exactly are those motivations if they are "so ridiculously clear and totally dominate any semblance of scientific detachment." What exactly do MMGW skeptics have to gain?
What exactly do MMGW skeptics have to gain?
You really have to ask that!?
It's a fiscal, political and philosophical battleground.
On the fiscal side are the obvious players: those who would stand to lose money as a result of policy. Not unsurprisingly, these entities and individuals are keen to influence the vectors of policy. It's hardly a secret that many of the denialists have links with bodies at least partly funded by petrochemical companies. In a world where many of you denialists repeatedly posit that emissions trading is merely a clever plot to generate money, surely you can see that there are massive vested interests on the "nothing to see here, folks" side of the ledger.
However, there are also the "well meaning amateurs". People like you, who flap the heterodox flag mainly because it reinforces your conceptions. You have a view of the world that requires you to see this as the unfettered march of liberal secularism. Therefore, on you press, without much regard for the actual science, and seduced by the above types. You do things like post videos made at "conferences" organised by notoriously partisan right wing think tanks.
Do you maintain that you have a good working knowledge of the state of the scientific backdrop? I don't mean as a scientist, but as an interested and informed observer?
Commenting by HaloScan
