Quote:
Originally Posted by Miaplacidus
Now, now. I've been persuaded of the likelihood of human induced warming since 1976, and from direct contact with many of the scientists (and perhaps more convincingly, the technicians) involved in measuring the effects, I have only become more convinced.
But I still wouldn't call people who disagree as nutters. At least, not per se.
Counterproductive, if nothing else.
|
I think it depends on what is meant by disagreement.
Plenty of disagreement is potentially not nutty. For example, here are few genuinely sceptical positions which seem at least arguable to me:
- There is much uncertainty about how fast the effects of global warming are going to take place.
- There is much uncertainty about what the local weather effects of global warming will be.
- Some of the wilder claims of the environmental movement are not supported by the science.
- The generally proposed economic responses are not likely to be effective.
- I'm not a scientist and am confused by the debate.
The nutters are the ones who (as per my headline) think science is a communist plot and that some half-thought-out catch-phrase they heard from Alan Jones wipes out a century of well-tested science.