Reply to post: Re: Alternative Facts


Richard Plinston Silver badge

Re: Alternative Facts

> but I can't agree with your later demonisation of "Deniers"

I am not sure where I did that at all, perhaps you could point that out.

OTOH some "Deniers" seem to demonise climate scientists and others that see climate change actually happening, such as 'Big John', who flat out denies anything bad is happening or will ever happen, and says it is all fake and for the money. He also is confused because 'global warming' makes it colder in the south in winter (which is actually because there is more energy to take the cold artic air further south).

> some "deniers" are just "sceptics" as in scientific scepticism.

That is certainly true. But sceptics are able to voice their concerns without resorting to personal attacks (such as calling them fools) and can provide the evidence they used to produce alternate explanations for the global record high temperatures and increasingly more active weather patterns.

> In other words they are taking each others models as rote - as fact.

As someone related the other day: "How can weather scientists get it right when some weather forecasts for tomorrow say it will be cloudy and others say it will rain". It may be true that there may be some minor disagreement over the forecast for tomorrow, but we can all agree on the weather that happened yesterday. That was record highs, record number of stronger weather systems, Arctic ice is less, Antarctic sea ice is thinner, glaciers are retreating, sea levels are higher than 30 years ago.

> in order to remove ALL the questions that people still have.

There is no doubt that CO2 levels are higher than at any time in the last 100,000 years (and certainly since records were kept), that warming of the seas and atmosphere (more energy) is happening. The "deniers" are the ones that are denying the actual objective measurements. In some cases they are doing it because they don't want anyone telling them they can't buy petrol anymore, or can't pump oil out of the ground, or can't burn down a forest.

> Putting ALL scepticism down as some sort of low intelligence, conspiracist movement is a bad thing

I can't recall ever doing that. It may well be that some are as you describe, but did I actually describe anyone like that? and I certainly can't recall writing hyperbolically.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019