| Yeah - these threads can be confusing when posts are removed. A poster named "Hubris" parachuted in (0 threads, 0 posts) and posted something which I took to be pro-denier (though mostly anti-Kluge) taking exception to my observation that there really is no controversy about AGW among practicing scientists, that the "debate" is basically fueled by people with no actual understanding of climate science claiming to be reasoned "skeptics" when in fact their "skepticism" is simply ignorance which has been capitalized on by the disingenuous and opportunists. All of Hubris' posts have since disappeared.
For what it's worth, my opinion about anthropomorphic climate change is pretty much the same as my opinion of plate tectonics, nuclear fission, and other subjects as to which I have a reasonably well informed lay understanding, but by no means "scientific" understanding: if there's a clear consensus among the actual, qualified scientists about how it works, I'm inclined to assume they're right, and act accordingly, in the absence of compelling countervailing reasons to do so. And one or two fringe scientists, a retired geezer getting a little PR love by making a "bold, contrarian" statement (without doing any of the heavy lifting involved in real research) or plausible sounding pop-science level critiques do not qualify as "compelling countervailing reasons" for ignoring climate change in my opinion.
The fact that climate change denial is clearly an ideologically-fueled philosophy makes me even more cautious about checking the data the deniers posit. And that double-checking has produced smoking gun evidence that the deniers have fudged facts to the point of out-and-out lying over and over. What does that tell you?
(Edit: Whoops - now Leda's post is gone. Pretty soon I'll be talking to myself here....) |