Because he has no f**ing idea.

Besides, it seems the CSIRO will soon be implicated in this vast conspiracy ...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/15/2845519.htm

Soren wrote on Mar 16^th, 2010 at 10:33am:


There is a difference between the concensus of dumbf uck yanks and that of expert scientists, but dont let the facts get in the way of your  climate  terrorist beliefs,soren.
Are you American by any chance?

And don't forget they can't recite the alphabet unless the pronunciation of Z is changed to rhyme with V.

I'm suprised only 40% of them agree with Soren.

The point, soren lorenson, since I have to painstakingly point it out to you, is to highlight the absence of logic in your reasoning that "American's don't believe it, therefore it can't be true". Americans say 'zee', soren lorenson. By your reasoning, we should all say 'zee' too, because Americans must be right.

By the way, there has never been a majority of Americans who accept that global warming is caused by human activities. Your source is wrong.

Just to make the point perfectly clear, Americans generally believe in creationism. By your reasoning, therefore, you should believe in creationism too.

But oh, that's right you do believe in creationism!

I rest my case.

Quote:
Soren

That is a pretty fair point, and we do know that scientists are probably not the best media animals around, instead preferring to continue with actual work that may have some benefit, or at least be meaningful, in helping to fill in those pesky dots.

It is a pretty decent analogy you give us there, because at the moment we have a dot picture with at least 90% of the dots connected, but still we get the denialists screaming out, contrary to the weight of evidence right before them,it is a hippo, no, it's a dog, or if you are a potty peer, it is probably a pink elephant.

The sticking point to the argument for getting scientists to be more vocal is twofold, at least, primarily, as I already said, they would prefer to be doing real work, rather than refuting silly contentions raised by the likes of potty peers, they do not need to put any work, or thought, into making up lies, but it takes time to research, and reference all the reasons why they are lies.
That being said, a group of scientists do contribute to the "RealClimate" site;
http://www.realclimate.org/
and there they debunk the most loudly and oft repeated lies quite thoroughly, so at least we can get a good indication from that whether people are really skeptics, or just ratbag denialists, for the ones that keep repeating the thoroughly debunked lies, after reading the scientific response to the lies, fall into the latter category.

Secondly, we have possibly the main reason that we do not see many scientists on our tellys giving us a good old heart to heart, and this is because they are notoriously poor spin merchants, and would likely drift off into such detail as to merely confuse, rather than enlighten the average joe citizen, by answering questions too thoroughly, and too exactly to ever fit the time frame they would be given in our "sound grab" addicted media.

All is not lost though, we do have advisors who manage to get the relevant information to the policy makers, and we have seen an unprecedented acceptance of their work by governments, of every possible political persuasion, all over the planet.

Now is the fact that 40 odd percent americans don't get it a concern, of course it is, as is the fact that 25% also believe they will see the second coming of christ in their lifetime, and even greater numbers than that, being, I believe, to be a figure similiar to the number of GW doubters, who also believe that dinosaurs and humans lived together on this planet, at the same time!
Seriously now, I mean, who needs science when you have The Flintstones?

Love denialism Fred?  I Yubba Dubba Doo.

Perfect timing, we have a fan of "Bedrock" chime in right on cue, I wonder if he was surveyed in any of those reports, he may have scored a hat trick.

we can get a good indication from that whether people are really skeptics, or just ratbag denialists, for the ones that keep repeating the thoroughly debunked lies, after reading the scientific response to the lies, fall into the latter category.



lol, anyone want to take a stab at who I am thinking of right now?

No, it's refutable, but I am cowering at the prospect of dealing with such a towering intellect, and ethical role model, as yourself.

Another possibility is that I think you are a bonehead incapable of even a glimmer of rational behaviour on the issue of climate change.

I have seen others give you the benefit of the doubt, and engage you on this issue, but when things get too hot for you, 'scuse the pun, you turn tail and disappear, to pop your idiotic mug up months later, and start repeating your earlier discredited garbage for a rerun.

That just makes you a pest, not someone to actually engage with on any issue of importance.

Soren wrote on Mar 17^th, 2010 at 12:12am:

Then why exactly did you post the link, soren lorenson? What other possible reason could there be for posting that nonsense? Even if your intention really was to make fun of "the warmerist fetish about data", I'll gladly stick my hand up to that one.

Silly me, being obsessed with such a trivial think like data!

Perhaps I should develop a fetish for myths, half-truths, misconceptions, preconceptions and just plain old lies instead. But it doesn't seem to be working all that well for you, so no thanks.