denial

right, i'm saying it. global warming deniers are in the same boat as hardcore 9/11 conspiracy theorists . seriously? believe what you want to believe, but keep out of the way of science, facts, and those of us who want to deal with reality.

first argument: "so says the people who aren't able to understand the criticisms of the relevant models...
none of the scientific sceptics dispute that they are in the minority... but arguing consensus has never been grounds for scientific debate."

in response to his later claim that i suffer from a god complex:
"here, mister i-have-no-god-complex. you've read so much more... than all the scientists who are making the claims? i don't have to be better read, i don't have to personally be an expert in the field, i need to see that properly peer-reviewed science is being performed. if you're one of those leading experts and on that basis you're making the claim, then show me your peer-reviewed papers. but if not, don't behave like you know everything and that all the rest of us are in denial.

i think we did agree that regardless of whether the models are correct, and regardless of whether we have the resources or not, it's a safer bet to become sustainable. because if we become sustainable, the likelihood of disaster is reduced considerably. if we don't, we're at the mercy of a bunch of people who are more into rhetoric than fact."

...

"and yes, if i dispute a particular approach in a specific journal, i'd expect you to read it. i don't dispute that 97% of climate scientists aren't sceptics... but there is that other 3%... and if you go on TRUST of a journal... that is profoundly anti-science. i'm very happy to change my mind, if someone comes up with a clincher argument... but as someone who has done computer modelling, i have a profound distrust of many complex models. specifically when things like cloud coverage is an UNKNOWN to models at this point.

i have no problems with scientists in the mainstream. i have problems with people in the mainstream who think their beliefs are self-righteously correct, and are not prepared to engage in the debate.

take richard lindzen from MIT for example. many mainstream scientists disagree with him. that's fine. but the majority of them do not call him a fool, requiring psychotherapy and a reality check. that's what your post above is doing. i suggest you read the following article."

is it not foolish to put all your eggs in one basket, and leave that basket in an area that many people have claimed is full of crime even though you haven't seen it for yourself? perhaps the consensus *IS* wrong. plebs like me can't do much about that. but what we can do is react in the smartest way to what is most reasonable to assume.

the evidence is all pointing to the 97%.

i'm fairly certain that this guy will never accept the "clincher" argument because it doesn't matter how valid it is. we need to worry about all sorts of things, but if global climates go pear-shaped then all the other problems only get exacerbated.