Climate science deniers threaten violence

Umm... yeah I'm not going to go to Huffington Post for a fair and even evaluation of anything.

Having said that, no, that's not what I was referring to. But let's assume this is accurate, and we're talking about 60-70 "confirmed" climatologists. Are they science deniers?
 
The standard MO of GT is to call all those who disagree with the subjective solutions to any climate change science deniers...

Or, if they disagree with the subjective conclusions of the effects of any climate change, they are also science deniers...

Or, if they question exactly how much man is responsible for climate change, they are science deniers...

Any dissension at all with an alarmist position on climate change results in being labelled a science denier...
 
man..i am late to this party!

so first of all, McBrett…where have you been? I posted a nice thread for you about carbon trading….something you assured me I knew nothing about and that was VERY healthy economically…..was that not specific enough? it seems that carbon trading is quickly fading and everyone is seeing through the ruse eh?

GT…this is a painful thread even for you. heck, Watts does tons to educate people actually. He constantly links to new peer reviewed papers and allows tons of dissension (granted it is respectful). on the other hand, people like Gavin Schmidt etc are constantly deleting posts and banning people who disagree with them or ask them questions they can't answer. if you really appreciate the skeptic's role in the progress of science, you should be very grateful to Watts, not putting him out there as some evil man.

as a professor, you sure seem close-minded to any view that disagrees with your rather radical view on this issue.
 
GT, still waiting to see if you believe that an accredited scientist who does not believe we've proven man-made global warming is a "science denier." Just trying to understand what that term really means.
 
Prod-

Your response switches from "mcbrett' mentioned more than one argument" (which I did, so what) to, "I don't like your argument".

If progress means people X lose their jobs- frankly- I don't give a crap. We're not going to live in the stone ages because everytime a newer, better technology comes around people like oilfield, who work in that industry, complain certain people may lose their jobs. I don't wish anyone bad careers, but, if your sector changes- I think as capitalists we tell people- adapt or suffer.

I used to get upset, thanks in part to Ross Perot, about outsourcing. Then, enough economists explained- this is what efficient economies do. Clearly, if you are defending coal or horse/buggy jobs, you have some further reading required.
 
Agenda Alert: here comes mcbrett to add two cents on a "science denier" thread, and of course ties it to how evil the industry is. I wonder the % of his posts that deal with the energy industry...90%+?
In reply to:


 

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top