It's no coincidence that global warming alarmists tend to be Marxists who want the government to control industry with a combination of subsidies and high taxes. They claim it's about the science, but we know better.
The scientists who answer questions here need to be more responsible. When one of the science institutions makes a pronouncement, the members have a duty to correct it if it is wrong or an exaggeration or otherwise not supportable. The same goes for the media. When an article appears in the Washington Post, for instance, spreading alarmism the people who understand the situation should, in my view, write to the paper and lay out the truth of the situation.
What we actually see is many organisations making outlandish comments and the scientists say nothing. Some of their number are willing to appear on TV to substantiate what was said. most of them are quite clever with their wording of their replies to ensure that they appear to support the alarmist view without actually telling outright lies. Take a look at some of Kevin Trenberth's interviews fo instance.
It is the same here. Many views are popularly "understood" by people at large but when questioned in detail the scientists say that they did not say that.
As Edmund Burke once said: "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
EDIT: There is one such article today: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree... Do the scientists agree with the alarmist stance that Stern has taken? Will anyone be writing to the Guardian to point out the reality?
Is this true: "The Earth has not experienced a global temperature more than 2C higher than pre-industrial since the Pliocene epoch 3m years ago ... "?
"... if people are faced with increased dangers of floods, droughts and other extreme weather, they will try to escape, resulting in population movements of perhaps hundreds of millions, leading to widespread and continued conflict." Over what time scale - he talks, emotively of course, of children and grand-children?
Well, you say "alarmists" and "time and time again" and yet all you come up with is a blog from a single graduate student--why don't you write him and ask him? You don't seem to have support for such a general question and assumption.
On the other hand, I'm quite certain I could find MANY instances when you and other "denial alarmists" have been proven wrong, so perhaps you're in a better position to answer your own question.
Big Gryph, clearly this fellow's field is now climatology. Physics provides an excellent background for the study of climate.
It does seem silly to think you can accurately predict the exact year of all the ice melting in the Arctic Ocean as the scientist predicted incorrectly in the Sierra Club article. However, that doesn't make this scientist an alarmist because the ice is melting at a dramatic rate and faster than many other scientists have predicted.
I see that all answers seem to be from people who have not ever seen a single article that lays out the variety and range of research done on this topic over the past 40-50 years. Nor read, or cared to read, the scientific dialogue. Instead they accept statements at face value.
The Kock brothers, for instance, have their fortunes tied to fossil fuel. Like the cigarette people, truth is dangerous to their financial plans so they invest hundreds of millions in disinformation. It is sensationalist, radical, accusative, feeds conspiracy and paranoid tendencies exactly like the tobacco campaigns did.
Scientists, however, have no money for publicity and media can't easily sell it anyway because it takes thought and knowledge to understand.
Sooo "Climate change alarmists", "time and time again". I'm guessing you are an American. This guy admits his predictions were "out there" and that he got it wrong. Using his self confessed mistake as an excuse to knock "climate change alarmists" (or scientists as we usually call them), is a low blow. Hey fella follow this link:
http://insights.wri.org/news/2012/09/tim...
So are the "climate change alarmists" still wrong, or are you just unwilling to give up your Yank gas guzzler and 24/7 air con. USA 5% of the world population, 27% of CO2 emissions. You and Donald Trump are Dinosaurs, and you know what happened to them.
I tried to follow your link and got this message.
"This link is not authorized by Yahoo!"
Are you trying to infect us with a virus, or do you need to learn not to trust anyone who doesn't accept global warming?
No. Just think of all the rewards one stands to receive for being wrong.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-...
Strange times to say the least.
Sounds like mostly bullsh*t to me. I don't see any proof of anything. This isn't even a paper in a peer reviewed journal. It is a sierra club website article. It is not a science paper so it certainly doesn't prove anything
Mr Beckwith is a physicist,not a degreed climatologist
Alarmist scenarios ore only pushed by denialists, real scientific predictions include qualifiers and caveats which denialists studiously ignore
time and time again.
http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oGdbi8NT5SylQAHO9XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzcTc3amd2BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA3NrMQR2dGlkA1NNRTE5M18x/SIG=125qk623i/EXP=1379837500/**http%3a//www.sierraclub.ca/en/AdultDiscussionPlease
One person's opinion has nothing to do with anything. Anyway, it sure does not seem to bother Deniers who consistently lie about their own knowledge of science and happily spread bogus and false information about AGW from politically motivated shills who also do not know or care about factual evidence and scientific research.
