Blogger Gets His Question Answered

Q : What would it take for the man-made climate change skeptics to agree that we are impacting our climate?

I always see you folks write that the data is not there yet to support the contention that we are impacting our climate by releasing massive amounts of greenhouse gases. There really is loads of data to support that and the vast majority of climate scientists have conmcluded so.

What would it take for the skeptics/ deniers to finally accept this data?


A : Some real science. Pretty simple, huh?

Maybe you should get a job in the private sector and take your mind off of this.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Blogger Gets His Question Answered

  1. Latitude says:

    oh a hot spot, reality actually doing what the computer games say, a lobotomy………

    Anything that would make me believe that glorified weathermen can predict the weather……..

    A consensus on exactly what global warming is supposed to do.

    Enough drugs to make me believe that anyone knows the temperature 100 years ago to a 1/10th of a degree.

    Less flat out lies and exaggerations from people calling themselves scientists/experts to get more milk from the government teat and less fabrication of “new” discoveries that the rest of us knew all along.

    and an entirely new brain, cause this one isn’t that stupid……………….

    • suyts says:

      I’ve tried consuming copious amounts of alcohol, but that doesn’t get me even that stupid, so, I’m not sure your drug angle would work either.

  2. Mike Davis says:

    I agree that evidence that real science has been done might get me to consider the results.

  3. omnologos says:

    A verifiable prediction would do wonders. But right now, I’d settle for some intellectual honesty: “current CO2 emissions might be bad for future climate, so let’s start doing something about them”.

  4. TinyCO2 says:

    I’m not so confident that science is up to the job.

    I studied engineering at a University that also taught peace studies. As I sat in a huge lecture hall with 120 other students I longed to be able to join the 5 or so peace studies students on their bean bags, with their cups of coffee and discuss how I felt about subjects with no right or wrong answer. Much easier than learning masses of facts and figures. If you’d asked me if science was closer to engineering or peace studies, I have said the former. Now I’m not so sure. I had assumed that climate science was an oddball, but the lack of broad condemnation of climate science by the wider science community makes me think that it’s engineering that is the outlier with it’s silly attention to detail.

  5. Blade says:

    Q : What would it take for the man-made climate change skeptics to agree that we are impacting our climate?

    Isn’t that almost the exact same thing that Julienne Strove said?

    How very scientific of them. NOT.

  6. rw says:

    Of course there are “loads of data”. There always are in situations like this. There were loads of data that implicated Captain Dreyfus (300-odd pieces of data if I recall correctly, all but one of which were mfgd by French Intelligence). There were loads of data (or at least loads of arguments and examples) in support of Y2K. I’m sure that Lysenko and his followers marshalled loads of data to support his genetical ideas. People are very good at amassing loads of data to support their position, especially when they have the resouces at their disposal to do this. The problem comes when one tries to put those data together into a single coherent account.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s