I had actually had something similar to this, from the UK Guardian, I believe, sitting in my GetPocket account a few weeks ago, but, never got around to bothering to write a post on it. There had also been something in the LA Times opinion section about not printing anything from Skeptics, and the BBC has been under assault to not allow dissenting voices against the Cult of Climastrology to be heard. This whole “no debate” thing is growing
Disempower far-right climate change deniers. Don’t debate with them
After a long, hot summer beset by record temperatures, drought and deadly fires, imagine my shock, on returning to the European parliament, to be confronted with a report that denies the reality of climate change. Given it could influence the allocation of the next round of environment funding under the EU’s Life programme, it is deeply disturbing to see such a report, based on wholly discredited science, wending its way down the corridors of Brussels.
Some of the claims made by the report’s author, the Ukip MEP Stuart Agnew, are, frankly, pretty hair-raising. For instance, he claims that the effect of CO2 levels on our climate is “negligibleâ€, and that it is “one of agriculture’s greatest friendsâ€. Agnew claims there is a lack of concentration of CO2 and as a result there is no problem for the EU to solve.
So how could it be that someone with a track record of shameful ignorance of the science of climate change ends up being assigned the task of compiling this report?
(blah blah blah, whining but offering no proof that the climatic changes are mostly/solely caused by Mankind)
Given the dangers posed by the far right and the very real threat of a significant bloc of populist, climate change-denying MEPs after next year’s European elections, it is time for those of us who back the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change to take back control. That is why I joined other politicians, scientists, academics and campaigners in signing a letter pledging we would refuse to debate those who deny that human-caused climate change is real. We can no longer give voice to the pseudo-science of climate change deniers; we must urgently move the debate on to how we address the causes and effects of dangerous climate breakdown.
This was by Molly Scott Cato, the Green MEP for the south-west of England, who we can pretty much bet that she hasn’t given up her own use of fossil fuels and gone carbon neutral.
This is not how Science works. You have to be able to debate and defend your ideas. But, then, Warmists pretty much can’t, and have been avoiding debate for decades. Because this isn’t science.
Sorry, but there is no scientific basis for the ‘skeptic’ position. Their only argument is that the data are fixed, fudged or falsified. Debate is political activity. Scientific principles are not established by debate.
Why does the ‘skeptic’ side want to push their position by public opinion rather than by research? We know why, don’t we? Evidence does not support them.
What evidence would you find convincing? You seem to ‘know’ that there is no proof. What, to you, would constitute proof?
Little Jeffery lecturing us on science once again when he has no idea what it means? There, of course, is a scientific basis for skepticism. Any scientific assertion is always rigorously challenged (if he’d ever attended a science class, he’d know that).
If I can knock down your proofs with valid rebuttal of your methods and/or data, your assertion has no merit.
Why do you think the ability to make a proof is so important?
Oh, yeah, I keep forgetting. Facts mean nothing to Leftists.
Scientific theories do not rely on ‘proof’. You should know that. That ‘citizen scientists’ such as TEACH and his minions keep demanding proof exposes your ignorance. Theories are not proven, but as evidence accumulates to the point of it being unreasonable to deny, the theory is conditionally accepted as ‘true’, but is still falsifiable with evidence. The probability that the theory could be falsified is not zero, but becomes lower as supporting evidence accumulates and with little or no contrary evidence. (We know… notrickszone, WUWT etc says….)
We ask ‘skeptics’ to explain what scientific results would satisfy their desire for ‘proof’. The reason you can’t answer is because there is no answer. Skeptics choose not to accept the overwhelming evidence supporting the theory.
Skepticism is valuable in science, but what the climate change deniers practice is not science. They ignore science.
Again, (and again, and again, and again ad nauseam) NOBODY is skeptical that the climate is changing. We are skeptical that it is mostly/solely caused by man. But you already know this.
As for what proof we would accept? An accurate climate model would be great. As it stands now, none of these models are accurate. Not even close. This just tells me that these ‘scientists’ and ‘researchers’ do not understand how the global climate works.
And why did ‘skeptics’ come to accept that the Earth is warming after spending years denying it? Overwhelming evidence. Melting Arctic sea ice, melting Greenland ice sheet, heat waves etc. Is was not so long ago that ‘skeptics’ claimed the Earth wasn’t warming, but that the data were fudged or faked, that the thermometers were placed in such a manner to support warming.
The models are not accurate? Can you tell us why you say that? If you mean they do not perfectly model the whole of Earth’s climate you’d be right. They are models, after all. And of course no one knows everything about how the climate works. We’re aware that Roy Spencer presented a flawed interpretation of the models vs the temperature record a few years ago and that ‘skeptics’ use that graph to this day. Is that the basis of your criticism of climate models?
To be honest, we doubt you’d be convinced that CO2 is warming the planet, even if the models were perfect.
Â
What is the ‘skeptic’ position, little fella?
And why do you hate white people?
Agnew offers data and observations, including his own crop failures due to frost that wasn’t supposed to happen according to UEA, and what is the response of the Greens and Socialists? “Blasphemy, cut out his tongue!” And these fools claim to have science on their side?
An unexpected frost? LOL. Agnew has NO scientific evidence on his side. Conservatism lost this scientific argument long ago, and that’s why they try to win through politics.
Their objections are not scientific, it’s just that they are ideological opposed to the proposals to slow CO2 pollution.
Yeah, knocking down your data and methodology no matter how well researched their methods have nothing to do with science.
(is this kid a kindergarten dropout?)
Lol
As said before, skeptics debate, hoaxers cite “consensusâ€. Here’s an interesting beginning of a debate between skeptic William Happer, and alarmist David Karoly, except Karoly ran out in the middle of the debate. *settled science*
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/01/the-great-climate-change-debate-william-happer-v-david-karoly-part-a/
Somebody tell Jeffery about Copernicus and consensus.
And who is climate change denial’s Copernicus? Tony Wuwt, Pierre Gosselin, Teach?
In the 1500s the geocentric model was superseded by the heliocentric model over objections from the Christian hierarchy.
If the denier’s Copernicus comes up with a better explanation, supported by evidence, then the theory of AGW may be superseded! Good luck.
In the meantime we should take steps to reduce CO2 pollution.