I think I’ve found a new hobby! it’s more fun than clubbing seals, and it’s ethical too! it’s climate denier bashing! I’m not talking climate change skeptics here, skepticism is well and good, but most of what you hear these days ain’t skepticism, it’s denial pure and simple (I’ve posted a page on the difference in definitions).
I’ve already posted a few previously, here’s a new one:
Originally posted in response to a blog blasting the Scientific American for believing the IPCC (they could have chosen an easier target!):
you crack me up greatly.
if you actually READ the IPCC summary for policy makers, you’ll notice that the factor of five data is still there, complete and correct. it’s just that the wording “outweigh.. by a factor of five” was to politically forceful. the facts are there, but now people have to work it out for themselves.
there’s no such thing as a “fact” when you are dealing with the future. there are only probabilities. the science inherently recognises this. the models are basically simplistic chaos systems. they run multiple times, and then the range and average is taken into account to put forth predictions.
why are you even writing such a detailed critique if you have to beg for an definition of “global warming”? global warming it the [i]average warming of the globe[/i]. if point A gets 1C cooler, and point B gets 3C warmer, then the average of the two is 1C warmer.
I wonder why you question the Scientific American? I don’t read it, but I assume that it’s a magazine devoted to scientific evidence. but you aren’t questioning the science, are you? you’re questioning the political integrity of the magazine. well and good, but you have no more proven political integity than they do, and you have NO scientific evidence to back up your claim that the science reporting is “crap… dung… drek”.
nice reading you.