Do you know the difference between skeptic/denier argument compared to AGW proponent?

Denial group links:
Epw.senate.org (far right wing senator – Inhofe)

AGW proponent links:
US Climate Science Program
Joint science academies’
National Academy of Sciences, US
Academia Brasiliera de CiГЄncias, Brazil
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
AcademiГ© des Sciences, France
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher, Germany
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei, Italy
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society, United Kingdom
American Geophysical union
Geological Society of America
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
UK Royal Society
UK Met Office

Every AGW proponent group is a world class scientific organization, but the skeptic/deniers, well it’s obvious what they’re trying to do.

Come on Richard, you know the funding of all those scientific groups is dependent upon them concluding that humans are causing catastrophic climate….hah, I couldn’t say it and keep a straight face.

I love jim’s answer – he doesn’t need scientific references, he has original thoughts. After all, he’s a geologist so he’s already a climate science expert! Talk about arrogance and Dunning-Kruger in effect. That is a perfect microcosm of the denial movement. They think they don’t need to research climate science, they can just figure it out on their own (or by reading DailyTech and Watts’ blog).

We all know deniers are in denial for political reasons (combined with fear of change). They can babble about how the science is on their side all they want – they’re not fooling anybody, and their sources (or lack thereof) reveal otherwise.

Does this surprise you? They would reference all the AGW proponent links if they agreed with their opinion, but they don’t, so they reference junk science or news articles with lots of unscientific opinion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *