Comments on: We’ll always have Paris

By: Nicole

Nicole — Wed, 12 Jul 2017 03:27:59 +0000

wait and see

By: Waweru

Waweru — Fri, 30 Jun 2017 12:15:05 +0000

It is heartbreaking for world powers to politic with the future of these planet without concerted effort and for all stakeholders to play their role in remedying the impact of climate change the future of these planet is bleak.

By: Wizzy

Wizzy — Sun, 18 Jun 2017 12:56:23 +0000

@Craig Thomas #25
I agree, but that doesn’t change the fact that substantial parts of the general public believe otherwise (i.e., science would be still actively debating about wheter GW is occuring and/or anthropogenic and/or dangerous). So aside from science, there is something wrong: Scientific ideas do not get to the heads of the majority. There is just no strongly developed way for scientific ideas to get to everybody, as e.g. school teachers are not always up-to-date or do know about current state-of-the-science. And all that is dangerous. I think that (apart from media and opinion-multipliers who are at fault) scientists are sometimes not very empathic to adequately pass their findings to people who initially doubt them.

By: Craig Thomas

Craig Thomas — Fri, 16 Jun 2017 02:22:29 +0000

You’ve allowed yourselves to be distracted by CJones’ science-y red herrings.

This has nothing to do with the science.

This is 100% about a tiny fraction of American society telling Trump what policy to follow in order to maximise their own profits at the expense of the environment that the other 99.99% live in.

Talk about past ice ages is just a diversion. Nobody has any information that casts any doubt on the fact that human activity is causing 100% of current global warming. All they have is stories recycled from talking heads.

By: Wow

Wow — Tue, 13 Jun 2017 21:12:05 +0000

And it’s up to you to decide how harsh or how far you bend over backwards you want to be. I’m not telling you you have to call out lying when you are uncomfortable with making that likely, but unproven, assertion. I’m not saying you cannot change your mind about an accusation. I’m saying that you should decide yourself whether you want to change your claims or attribution as makes you feel you have best expressed them.

If you’re wrong, be honestly wrong. Wrong can be corrected. Dishonesty can’t be corrected, whether right or wrong.

By: Wizzy

Wizzy — Tue, 13 Jun 2017 21:02:45 +0000

@Wow Probably you’re right. Sometimes it’s harsh to expose the truth.

By: Wow

Wow — Tue, 13 Jun 2017 12:42:14 +0000

Wizzy, that’s generally laudable, but what, exactly, is the better option?
1) They knew it was BS and said it anyway, hence “lying” is correct
2) They didn’t know, didn’t bother to check, but said it as authoritative and well researched, thereby lying on the implication of it being based in researched evidence.
3) They don’t know enough to know what they’re saying, but say it anyway.

if calling #3 a liar hurts their feelings or makes them look bad, then maybe this will make them work on comprehension BEFORE speaking. And if it doesn’t change their behaviour, in what way is it bad to call them a liar? It made no discernable difference to the actions, and actions are all we have to go on, since mindreading isn’t a thing.

By: Wizzy

Wizzy — Tue, 13 Jun 2017 11:59:31 +0000

@Wow
Yeah you’re right that those claims of Cjones1 are incorrect too, if judged by looking into the publications and literature. However, I for my part take back the “lying” accusation and I’ll give Cjones1 the benefit of doubt. Maybe he just was angry and writing passionately, more like guessing some stuff (wrongly) by guts than actually lying. It’s hard to tell via the web, I’m just hoping Cjones1 can be reasonably discussed with – and hopefully more people are more sensible than it may seem. It’s easy also for me to get angry too quick in pure virtual space.

By: Wow

Wow — Mon, 12 Jun 2017 19:22:47 +0000

Wizzy he’s also lying when he claims “absolute certainty”, since that isn’t being claimed (except by the nuts who are ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN it’s a scam). And lying when he says “no debate allowed”.

Because when a denier starts lying, there’s no real reason to cut back on it.

By: Wizzy

Wizzy — Mon, 12 Jun 2017 11:55:50 +0000

@Cjones1
“The scientists can’t agree on why the last ice age ended and yet AGW “experts” declare with absolute – no debate allowed – certainty that runaway global warming caused by CO2 levels is about to occur.”
IPCC, http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session31/inf3.pdf:
“For instance, a “runaway greenhouse effect” – analogous to Venus – appears to have virtually no chance of being induced by an thropogenic activities.”
You are lying, sir. Most scientists concerned about AGW don’t expect _runaway_ warming by AGW to occur, and that is also well documented in any scientific book about AGW.

All the nice other things you mentioned, volcanoes, Milankovic, solar cycles etc. are made known to you by the papers of the very same scientists concerned about AGW. You should study more.