One of the reasons that climate skepticism is a disorganized mess is the tendency to
counter alarmist claims, not with a factual rebuttal, but with a speculative counter-claim.
Not exact matches
You respond with science and he
counters with examples such as David Archer, who wrote an
alarmist book
claiming 10 meters of SLR by end of century.
Essentially, they teach two sides of the debate, despite all the empirical evidence completely
countering the catastrophic
claims of ivory tower, green
alarmists.
Then thereâ $ ™ s the pesky issue of â $ œconsensus.â $
Alarmists typically
counter any fact - based global warming argument with the assertion that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has already ruled on the issue, and therefore â $ œthe science is settledâ $ and â $ œthe debate is over.â $ â $ œMild winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms, â $ IPCC
claimed in its 2001 Third Assessment.
15 (now 16) years of stasis is important
counter to one important
alarmist claim.