Climate Change Cult Alarmists
What we have seen in this great thread is
a, Skepticism of the subject matter
b. Skepticism of the politics involved in the subject matter
c. Non acceptance of the settled science theme (a theme that is utterly illogical in itself because, by definition, such a concept is not scientific)
d, Non acceptance of the theme of climate change – well no, actually, why shouldn't the climate change? After all, everything else in the universe changes, or was Charles Darwin in error?
e. Non acceptance of the current global warming theme; not proven beyond reasonable doubt for many reasons
f, Non acceptance of the specific that mankind is the cause of climate change
g. Plenty of use of fallacious lines of argument, which has been interesting in itself as a subset of psychology.
h, Skepticism of the positions taken up, against all comers, in any situation; what I referred to earlier as the “closed minds” syndrome.
In my case, I came to this subject as an agnostic on the totally of the matter. I did some reading at that time and then moved on to other wolves that are chewing at the runners fitted to the sledge of mankind.
Now I have continued to read articles about suchlike – not in a quasi-religious manner with my mind decided, one way or the other and as a blind act of faith, but to see what clear arguments are put forth. It follows that mere anecdotes are simply discounted (as an engineer by profession I have a healthy regard for the scientific process and the purposes to which it has been put since the age of the enlightenment).
However, my latest reading leads me to say that my agnosticism ends with the advocacy of CAGW; that is where the stink of politics really does stick in the craw.
In the instance of the global warming/cooling alarm there is plenty of publicity for that view expounded ad infinitum via many forms of media – sure,”that” makes me immediately suspicious, it flowing from the settled science school of (non) thinking.
By “that” I refer to the band-wagon politicians, scientists, place-people in society, commentators and presenters in a wide range of media, especially the MSM, who dive into their discourse with a preconceived theme, scarcely prepared to entertain the idea that they could just be wrong; frankly, during my working life, I have put up with far too many people of that brain washed ilk.
It is worth remembering than the ultra-brain washed UK meteorological office has recently lost it's contract with the BBC for weather forecasting because it has been repeatedly so wrong.
To summarise this:
Ball
But, of course, it goes much further to the issues flagged up earlier: the persecution of those who dissent from the quasi-religious cult and its mantras.
For the other camp, there are various written papers, blogs, websites and the like which are just part of that picture in that they vary in quality (and quantity) so it is necessary to continue the personal research.
However, it might be that such outlets are growing in both number and quality and, over the life of the quasi-religion, increasing easier access to the WWW can only mean that the good science will eventually be revealed to debunk the junk settled science whatever it's nature.
The agnosticism reminds of the old joke:
Guy is approached in the street in Northern Ireland, and challenged to declare his allegiance:
“Are you a catholic or a protestant?”
“Neither” says the street walker, “I'm an agnostic”.
“Well, are yee a catholic agnostic or a proddie agnostic?”
(In some circumstances, it isn't possible to sit on the fence).
And here is a paper which makes some very interesting arguments on nearly all of the themes which have appeared in here up to now, with the exception of the odd anecdote or two and one or two other aspects not mentioned much to date.
Nor does it deal in any depth at all with the subject of how our sun affects our planet, but we can come back to that.
Fallacies about Global Warming | Originals
Viz:
1. Temperature records
2. Temperature trends and extrapolation
3. Acceptance of climate modelling results by judgement of the outputs of the models
4. Consensus among scientists is required, or even important
5. Dominance of scientific papers (at a point in time) is conclusive of the truth
6. Peer reviewed papers are accurate and true
7. The IPCC is a reliable authority and it's reports are both correct and widely endorsed by all scientists
8. It has been proven that human emissions of carbon dioxide have caused global warming
And, yes, they do have a blog!
The SPPI Blog