Just one question guys, what would prove to you that AGW is real? Or did you guys just decide beforehand?
Well Penguin, I could aske the same question. At the risk of being accused of sophistry. Did you guys decide beforehand? Clearly we're in the middle of warming period have being for some time. At what point did someone, somewhere decide that we humans had an input?
Really that is the crux of the matter, not that we there is climate change but whether or not we caused it. It's become increasingly clear that the conclusion was reached before the science was in. Now the orthodox view is that climate change is caused by humans and that only we can prevent further climate change. No dissension is allowed from that viewpoint. That was clear from the CRU emails. We as humans are still only in the early stages of working out how the climate mechanism. Yet we insist that we have induced global climate change long before we had any real data to prove it..
So yes, Angus the glaciers are melting. Of course they are, it is literally true. But that's not the argument. The argument is whether or not greenhouse gases produced by us humans are causing it.
Penguin, you were being condescending, I was simply addressing the notion that skeptics are marginalised. Clearly we're not. I took the quote out of context merely to make the point. But ignore that by all means.
But that does bring me to another issue which is rife throughout this thread and frankly any debate on the issue. In fact it's a characteristic of many of those in the warmist camp. Being patrionising and condescending is always the fall back option. In fact as often as not it's resorted to in the first case. Scientists in particular are prone to it. Politicians too, Britain's PM Gordon Brown, referred to skeptics as anti-science and flat-earthers. Considering that includes most of his electorate. That might have been a mistake.
Let me quote Moray:
I honestly don't expect a single mind to change here. There are few on this bbs actually approaching this with any critical thinking whatsoever. I simply continue to put up real studies with real data. It has become a bit of entertainment, for me.
Reeks of condescention and I'm afraid all too typical. I have debated this on other boards and when you come across scientists of any specialisation, particularly the younger ones. They always resort to saying: 'You wouldn't understand' with the implied undertone that we can't understand. We refuse to understand. We have an agenda. So it's 'entertainment' for them. Moray finds us amusing, he toys with us.
I don't find it amusing being patronised on such a serious subject. Already I'm paying higher taxes and finding my life restricted and my way of life under attack by people who in my opinion are misguided not only in their methods but in their belief that we have not only changed the world's climate but that we can somehow stop it happening. Surely the absolute defintion of hubris. We humans have a lot to learn, scientist too. Perhaps lesson in humility should be part of the training.:ugh:
