This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

SMART's Profile

SMART's Avatar Joined over 7 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by SMART

More Discussions by SMART

Latest Comments by SMART

Go to: Global warming 'confirmed' by independent study

SMART's Avatar Jump to comment 68 by SMART

I am no scientist. I don't know if the rise in Earth's temperature over the past 200 years is anything to worry about. I don't know about the relative significance of CO2 compared to water vapour as a greenhouse gas. I don't know if cosmic rays affect cloud formation or if clouds represent positive or negative warming feedback. But in this relatively new field of science I do know that statements like, "the science is settled" and, "there is no debate" are decidedly unscientific.

When you read some of the comments below it is clear why man-made global warming is referred to as a religion. It is because, in Bill Maher's words, its followers have, "the disease of certainty." They also have (like all religious zealots) a grossly inflated sense of their own (and mankind's) importance in this universe.

Those who express doubt in the alarmists prediction of an imminent climate Armageddon may currently be in the minority, but any real scientist will tell you, that doesn't mean they are wrong.

Sun, 23 Oct 2011 14:24:04 UTC | #883365

Go to: Why Carbon Dioxide Is a Greenhouse Gas

SMART's Avatar Jump to comment 54 by SMART

The reason this subject is so appropriate for the Dawkins website is that man-made global warming is a religion! Just read the vitriol against "cosmx" comments. To dare to question the dogma, to express any doubt that climate Armageddon is just around the corner... and you are immediately linked with holocaust "deniers"! What next, the Spanish (climate) Inquisition?!

I am no scientist but I do know that the word "consensus" is not appropriate in any scientific debate. I am also highly suspicious of the IPCC whose mandate specifically excludes any causes of climate change/global warming not associated with human beings.

Remember the oscar winning Inconvenient Truth? Remember the angle of the "blade" on Michael Mann's hockey-stick temperature graph? How come there is no kink in that blade to reflect the last 15 years of non global warming (according to Phil Jones, anyway)? Could it possibly be that the computer models so beloved of these scientists might not be as accurate as they claim? Just askin'.

Thu, 18 Aug 2011 14:10:48 UTC | #862189

Go to: NOAA study suggests aerosols might be inhibiting global warming

SMART's Avatar Jump to comment 29 by SMART

OK, Alan4discussion, the pertinent questions you seem determined to evade were in my comment 25. You remember that post don't you. It's the one that has, "so many things wrong with it it is best abandoned as scrap". I decided to make it really easy for you. I've re-written the question here and I've given you the answer!

If this last 15 year so-called "pause" in global warming is as explainable and understandable as you make out, then how come none of your "REAL" scientists predicted it? How come there's not a big kink in the blade of Michael Mann's hockey stick temperature graph?

The answer, Alan, as you well know, is that the computer models of those "REAL" scientists are not (yet) sophisticated enough to predict 15 years ahead, let alone a hundred. It is becoming more and more evident that increased CO2 in the atmosphere does not automatically lead to increased temperature at the surface - even though in theory, it should. There are obviously other factors at play that scientists have yet to figure out.

All this is embarrassingly basic of course, but to alarmists like you, it is anathema because it contradicts the dogma. To keep the "green" gravy train rolling climate disaster must be permanently imminent. If the climate behaves in a way that postpones Armageddon then you either ignore the evidence or retro-fit your science so that the event was "predictable".

This kind of behaviour could be expected from any delusional religious person but to see it displayed by a member of this site is, in my opinion, pathetic.

Tue, 26 Jul 2011 13:24:53 UTC | #854234

Go to: NOAA study suggests aerosols might be inhibiting global warming

SMART's Avatar Jump to comment 27 by SMART

It seems Alan4discussion is not up for much discussion: Re my last post, (25) "Comment25 has so many things wrong with it, it is best abandoned as scrap!"

Oh come ON Alan, is this really your best response!? Deflection, insults, (attempts at) ridicule, and a continuing refusal to answer some very pertinent questions - these kind of tactics speak volumes as to the strength of your case.

I think the truth is, you and your alarmist friends are running scared. If global warming doesn't resume very soon and increase steeply, your whole belief system falls flat on its face. Horror of horrors, you may have to concede that we humans are not quite as important in this universe as some of us would like to think we are!

PS I don't think there's a conspiracy going on anywhere in this debate but you keep using that word. Why so? (Another question for you to avoid!)

Mon, 25 Jul 2011 20:40:25 UTC | #853966

Go to: NOAA study suggests aerosols might be inhibiting global warming

SMART's Avatar Jump to comment 25 by SMART

Al4discussion: you're missing a central point here. Sceptics don't claim to understand and/or to be able to predict changes in our climate... the only thing we're certain of is that in the relatively new field of climatology, true science does not involve statements like, "there is no debate" or, "the science is settled". And we are justifiably suspicious of a UN organization (IPCC) whose mandate specifically excludes non-human causes of climate change! This is not, "know-it-all crap copied from denial ignoramuses", it is the actual wording in the IPCC mandate. Google it if you don't believe me.

If this last 15 year so-called "pause" in global warming is as explainable and understandable as you make out, then how come none of your "REAL" scientists predicted it? How come there's not a big kink in the blade of Michael Mann's hockey stick temperature graph? You assiduously avoid answering questions like these but that doesn't mean they go away.

For the civilised world, the blind acceptance of your catastrophic man-made global warming dogma will involve the expenditure of billions, maybe even trillions of dollars. If being sceptical about the necessity of such a huge undertaking makes me a "denier" then that is a label I wear proudly.

Mon, 25 Jul 2011 16:36:21 UTC | #853887

More Comments by SMART