> So your claim is that everything global warming scientists have been saying is wrong because they ignored vital evidence?
Nope, my claim was only that a few things that some global warming scientists have been saying is wrong because they ignored vital evidence or followed bad evidence. Other things that even those very people say are fine. But there's a lot of confirmation bias going on, and there's a fair bit of propaganda.
A big PART of the propaganda is to mischaracterize what skeptics are saying and why they are saying it. It is simply not true that people who doubt one element of the warmist litany doubt all elements of it. Hence the need for terms like "lukewarmer". The propaganda effort says that "denialists" are disagreeing with "97% of scientists", but in fact if you look at what questions were asked to get that "97% agreement" number you'll notice that essentially all the people accused of being "denialists" are IN the 97%. The stuff skeptics disagree with is mostly stuff that is still quite legitimately up for debate. For another example (besides the "unprecedented" thing), nobody knows what the actual climate sensitivity to CO2 (including all feedback effects operative at any given time) is; the IPCC can't give an exact number on that. They can give a range of guesses, but these are still guesses. Thinking they're guessing on the high side doesn't make one a creationist or even a 3-percent-er.
It seems normal that there is debate about details of a theory. However, the relevant aspect seems to be is there significant global warming because of human influence and should action be taken against it.
I think people who deny one or both of those two points are usually called global warming deniers (or skeptics, which might give them too much credit). I don't think arguing about some detail of the theory is in the same camp.
Nope, my claim was only that a few things that some global warming scientists have been saying is wrong because they ignored vital evidence or followed bad evidence. Other things that even those very people say are fine. But there's a lot of confirmation bias going on, and there's a fair bit of propaganda.
A big PART of the propaganda is to mischaracterize what skeptics are saying and why they are saying it. It is simply not true that people who doubt one element of the warmist litany doubt all elements of it. Hence the need for terms like "lukewarmer". The propaganda effort says that "denialists" are disagreeing with "97% of scientists", but in fact if you look at what questions were asked to get that "97% agreement" number you'll notice that essentially all the people accused of being "denialists" are IN the 97%. The stuff skeptics disagree with is mostly stuff that is still quite legitimately up for debate. For another example (besides the "unprecedented" thing), nobody knows what the actual climate sensitivity to CO2 (including all feedback effects operative at any given time) is; the IPCC can't give an exact number on that. They can give a range of guesses, but these are still guesses. Thinking they're guessing on the high side doesn't make one a creationist or even a 3-percent-er.
Does that make sense?