No, it hasn't.
The newspapers just like to paint us as unreasonable and fundamentalist. I admit, the use of the word 'deniers' has unfortunate associations, but most of us don't actually look down on climate change sceptics quite that much.

We are open to debate and we would dearly love it if someone could provide irrefutable proof that actually we just forgot to carry that three and it's all going to be alright. Most of these studies don't actually say "don't worry, it's going to be alright after all," they just proffer a study or a simulation that's contrary to fifty-odd other studies, because they set up a certain parameter in a different way. Unfortunately, because it goes ever-so-slightly against the grain, innumerable idiotic journalists see it as sensational and decide that the best thing to do is blow it up into a huge, triumphant publication that says everyone else was wrong all along. They seem to like to ignore the fact that it's just one little paper floating in a huge sea of similar papers which all make slightly different predictions. We're not ignoring these papers; they just don't have that much impact.
(LongJohnBaldry, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:22, 1 reply, 16 years ago)

I may have been mistaken
but I don't think he was talking about scientists, or at least, what he says is much more applicable to people who have a staunch belief for or against AGW, but have little understanding of the science behind it. The people cultivated by sensationalist media reporting.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:24, Reply)

Yes, sorry, you're right.
Reading his post back, he's not actually used the word "scientist." I've just been a bit tetchy since the papers started accusing all the climate scientists of being unreasonable and refusing to debate the matter. Sorry, almost got a bit knee-jerk there.
(LongJohnBaldry, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:26, Reply)

I'm not surprised that scientists are refusing to debate the matter
why would you want to discuss it with someone who doesn't understand and won't listen?
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:28, Reply)

Well, there is that
Although again, I refute the idea that they're "refusing" to debate - after all, in order to have a proper debate, you have to have a convincing case from the sceptics. And we're still waiting for that one...
(LongJohnBaldry, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:42, Reply)

sorry, wasn't saying they were
just saying that it was understandable if they did.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:44, Reply)

Oh, well that's fair enough, yes.

(LongJohnBaldry, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:48, Reply)

That's not a refutation.
It's a rejection. To refute something means to prove that it's mistaken, which you've not done.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:01, Reply)

Ah.
Ok, in that case I reject the idea.
(LongJohnBaldry, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:06, Reply)

My point really was

that sensationalism of any topic AGW, religion or politics on either side of an argument undermines that argument and at present it feels like there is a lot of AGW propogander that falls into this camp.

Similarly outright refusal to believe something is happening to the global climate also makes you look like a berk, as with most things a sensible and reasoned middle ground is where the truth and in this case our survival lies.
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:29, Reply)

Well, yes, you have a good point there.
Again: blame the papers.
(LongJohnBaldry, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:49, Reply)

Reasoned middle ground is, frequently, a pile of crap.
Right (ahahah I put it on the left)------------------------------------Wrong

Anywhere in the middle is still wrong.
(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:28, Reply)