Why do Alamists think they are the only ones that care about science?

No one is saying CO2 isn't increasing...that's objective and measurable.

No one is saying climate isn't changing...it always has long before the industrial revolution.

Shutting down the world economy and giving control to the UN isn't going make a significant difference in prognosis and no one responsible debates that. It would also send hundreds of millions back into poverty and into death from some other cause.

The debate is about the extent of human contribution and what to do about it. The debate is also about bad data and dire predictions not coming true. Posit a theory and observe...if observations do not support said theory, start all over, but don't ad hoc the theory with convenient explanations like "a pause".

Denial cuts both ways. Denial also means being in denial that the hockey stick predictions have not come to pass and that much of the data was fabricated or fudged. Magical thinking is also a primitive defense mechanism. This includes the idea that world government or psychiatrists on committees never heard of would make any difference.

For a more reasoned approach to this issue please listen to Jordan Peterson's podcast with Bjorn Lomborg as they discuss this constructively and not hysterically.



Might I assume "AlaRmists", not "Alamists"?

Lets look at what you are saying realistically. Yes, people are saying the climate isn't changing and people are saying CO2 isn't increasing. OR, if you prefer, we can not listen to the few fringe nut jobs and say that (no one with credentials) is saying to shut down the world economy and no one is saying give control to the UN. The data isn't bad and the predictions of actual scientists are coming true.

No one has suggested shutting down the world's economy and giving control to the UN.

Every country in the world, apart from the USA is signed up to the Paris Accord and working independently to find new and better ways to develop green energy.

Personally I would rather take my science from NASA, who have been studying climate change for many decades, who provide a mountain of evidence to back up their predictions. Written by scientists who have studied and graduated in fields which concern the natural world.

Rather than a man who graduated in political science and English literature.Whose main areas of study are in abnormal, social, and personality psychology, thepsychology of religious andideological belief, and assessment and improvement of personality andperformance.

Lomborg also graduated in political science.

You may cling to any one who denies the science of global warming, no matter if they have no expertise in any field related to the world's climate.

I prefer to listen to those people who have actually studied fields which bear a relationship to the worlds climate.

Because they are alarmists.

con paranoia. Millions would benefit from a new energy economy, re-tooling will create millions of jobs. Stay in the past or let other countries do it. BTW, doing nothing dooms millions into death, certainly into losing property

Alarmists aren't and don't. Big energy buys scientists to put out half-truths and to spin the facts. You don't buy things that you don't care about, do you?

Well, when you make a statement like:

"Denial also means being in denial that the hockey stick predictions have not come to pass and that much of the data was fabricated or fudged."

This statement is such utter nonsense that it's clear that you (1) don't really understand the science at all and (2) get your information about "science" from some propaganda site.

Now, it's okay to not understand the relevant science--most people (even many in science) don't have the background in atmospheric science and physics and that's not required of them in their work or daily lives.The problem arises, however, when you don't understand the science and you make pronouncements about based on what you've heard from Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity, read on "wattsup" or the Daily Caller or whatever propaganda website is your favorite.Those are not sources for good information on science. You need to look at actual science websites (usually with a .edu or .gov) extension, or pick up some textbooks and start reading those.

As it is, I haven't read ANYTHING you've written that sounded like you had a good understanding of science.

EDIT: Here's another example of why you seem to be clueless about science and not care whether what you say is accurate or not, in another question, you said:

"First the threat was global cooling, then global warming, now downgraded to 'climate change'..."

This is more nonsense. Forty years ago, when a few people were talking about cooling, there were actually more that were worried about warming.Second, global warming was never "downgraded" to climate change.What does that even mean? Global warming has been going on for many decades now, but the problem is that many people don't understand that has many effects beyond simply warming, so some people like to use "climate change" so that people (probably ones like yourself) understand that it encompasses more than just warming.

You don't seem to care about science or the accuracy of what you say in the least.I hope you just made up that story about your daughter, it would be sad to think that she had a father that lies with so little compunction.

It's not alarmism to say that pollution from human activity is causing a great deal of harm to the world (both to our species and other species).Exactly how much is not really important.It's not even really about the science, it's more about psychology and sociology.Even if we ignore global warming altogether (just for argument's sake) there are still MANY different ways that pollution is harming all living things on Earth.

We simply need to pollute less and stop grasping for reasons not to.It's kind of like obesity, everyone knows it's unhealthy, everyone knows what to do about it, it's just that people don't want to (and make up endless excuses and rationalizations why not).The difference between obesity and pollution however is that obesity only affects the individual but pollution harms us all (and other species).

How do you explain the massive increase in the extinction of other species?Do you even see that as a problem?

I tend to agree.I love science and feel protective of it.I'm pretty much a science nurd. I am a geologist but have a pretty good general knowledge of other branches of science but more importantly I understand there is much we don't know.

Alarmists tend to try to put scientists on a pedestal as long as they can use (abuse) what they say to help push their political agenda.They try to suggest that they only believe what those in authority (scientists) say.That is just a load of BS.You will notice that alarmists always warn of catastrophic warming but you will find virtually zero scientists that claim catastrophic warming will happen.

It seems to me that most alarmists don't really care about science. They care more about virtue signally to their fellow alarmists that they too are believers.I read Lomborg's book, the Skeptical Environmentalist, maybe 20 years ago and I find him to be somewhat of an alarmists but he is practical and realistic.That puts him at odds with most other alarmists.