I really hate the term "settled science"

a reply to: poncho1982

People (like myself, admittedly) who do challenge AGW, are not denying science, we're asking for BETTER science than what we have had. Freeman Dyson agrees

Good link. I was always taught to listen to my elders. Frequently they understand things in ways that we don't. And he's been looking at this problem since the 1980s.

Science should be about promoting knowledge, not advancing an unproven, flawed, model based agenda.

That's almost exactly what Freeman Dyson was saying. He's not a fan of the current climate models and he believes they are getting worse, not better.

He also indirectly endorsed geoengineering with respect to "arrange that it snows a bit more in Antarctica." I think it's likely we can get more global cooperation for this pursuit than carbon dioxide mitigation.

-dex

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You are 100% correct. I am a molecular biologist and I know what science is. A never ending quest for truth.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SuperFrog

It's hard to say who uses it more. Deniers will say that believers use it more often and believers will say that deniers use it more often. It's all skewed by our perception biases. The best course of action is to just not use it and encourage others not to use it. Sometimes that means calling out people on your side of the argument though, but if that person was truly looking to improve his position honestly and not just arguing based on rhetoric alone he'd acknowledge his mistake and correct himself.

Really?
Isn't this your position on man-made global warming...that people are idiots if they don't believe it? How is that different than claiming it is proven science?

"Being concerned about humans destroying our planet and other humans' refusal to even BELIEVE it is occurring let alone do anything about it? Yea I guess that is something idiotic to be overly invested in."