Are you claiming that there is no quackery in the GW movement?
It depends on what you mean by the "GW movement."
But I don't think it is "quackery" to point to Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum extinction event, and say that there is a non-trivial possibility that we may be in the process of recreating those conditions through our burning of fossil fuels. I didn't just make that up, hell I didn't even know what the PETM was until about 6 months ago. I get it from scientists' writings (no, I'm not counting Wikipedia as "scientists' writings", even though I point to that as a conventient place for people to read about it). Not just one or two scientists, but a number of them.
Look, I was a skeptic on this stuff last year too. You will look in vain through my posts prior to last Sept or Oct or so to find me writing about almost any environmental matter. But after the IPCC came out with their report last April, I decided I better investigate it, and started reading last summer. It isn't a matter of a "religious experience." I've read what the skeptics say, and the people you call "believers" say. The skeptics just don't have the arguments on their side. Luntz was right when he wrote 5 or 6 years ago that the science was closing down on the skeptic position. He was wrong in how he reacted to that fact, though. When you say "The truth is, I think that a lot of it is quck and a lot of it isn't," the sentence doesn't make appropriate distinctions, it could easily appear to some readers that you are saying that the science itself is quakery.
Well, enough for now, I have things to write and to do. |
