User:Jaimaster

Australian. Professional Technical Writer by trade.

Useful tags for my own reference - ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~

My #1 rule of politics - if the Greens party says x, x is probably exhaggerated or completely inaccurate First collary - regardless of the accuracy of x both sides of politics will endorse it, if x fits their own ideological requirements Second collary - since the collapse of popular communism and subsequent absorbtion of many anti-capitalists into envorimentalist movements, x more often lends itself to a far left ideology

Declaration of political disinterest - ill be voting Labor (Australian left) in the next state election. I voted Liberal (Australian right) at the last federal election, and Labor at the last state election. I estimate this places me about a full standard deviation to the right of Wikipedia at large...

Skeptical? What is skeptical? It is a word used by doubters of AGW in preference to "denier", considered to describe a pillar of scientific progress by some and a weasel word to be used as a slur by others.

There is no doubt at all that there is an anthropogenic effect on climate. To say otherwise is complete idiocy (or, an assumption that nearly everything we know about physics is wrong).

So why skeptical? In this case, I personally define it as "not standing with the IPCC consensus". Thus I am skeptical of the claim that >50% of the recent warming is man made - I regard the operator as backwards. Does that make me a climate change denier? I would say not. Others will disagree. I think it really depends on how much any given individual wants this theory to be correct as it suits their idealogy, and thus wishes to slur those that cast their own doubts upon it.