Is it fair to call people deniers when they call others alarmists?

[donnashuggy]

I've been thinking about it but there are better words I am sure 🙂

[siggie-reported-by-alarmists]

---

@ashjoma wrote:
So have some of the alarmists

---

Indeed.......

[lakeland27]

Australia has just sweltered through its hottest year on record, according to the Bureau of Meteorology.

Average temperatures were 1.20 degrees Celsius above the long-term average of 21.8C, breaking the previous record set in 2005 by 0.17C, the bureau said in its Annual Climate Statement.

All states and territories recorded above average temperatures in 2013, with Western Australia, Northern Territory and South Australia all breaking annual average temperature records.

And every month of 2013 had national average temperatures at least 0.5C above normal, according to the statement.

Heat maps: Australia's hottest year
See our detailed graphical breakdown of the year's temperature and rainfall data.

The country recorded its hottest day on January 7 - a month which also saw the hottest week and hottest month since records began in 1910.

A new record was set for the number of consecutive days the national average temperature exceeded 39C – seven days between January 2 and 8, 2013, almost doubling the previous record of four consecutive days in 1973.

The highest temperature recorded during 2013 was 49.6C at Moomba in South Australia on January 12, which was the highest temperature in Australia since 1998.

Further, with mean temperatures across Australia generally well above average since September 2012, long periods of warmer-than-average days have been common, with a distinct lack of cold weather, the statement says.

[donnashuggy]

That's alarming Lakeland 

[monman12]

AJ: "It's a scam lakeland27, a big scam, do your research and open your eyes and your mind"

AJ, it is normal to present ones research (or references/links) in order that credibility regarding a dissenting (strange) opinion  can be judged. I suggest you produce yours, because your comments apropos radioactivity et al are frankly, in my opinion,  just pure nonsense.

POD: "I would like to ask again.
Where does the 97% concensus originate?
What number of scientists does the 97% represent?
What are the qulifications of that 97 %"

POD:  "I put it to you  Iza that in fact that figure comes from an online survey in which there were 79 self selected respondants in which 2 questions were asked"

POD, it is also normal to present ones research (or references/links) to support a statement like that above, because like AJ's post(s) apropos this, and other sciences, it is nonsense.  However, whilst AJ's comments are not worth debating, you might  consider reading this paper:

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature   Published 15 May 2013

Abstract
"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011"     (my highlights)

Excerpt
"Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus." (my highlights).

nɥºɾ

[siggie-reported-by-alarmists]

John Cook...... is behind the Alarmist website Skeptical Science, and responsible for the nonsense survey.

[siggie-reported-by-alarmists]

There are numerous scientists who claim Cook, categorised their papers incorrectly, giving false survey results.

It seems Cook and his cronies, believe they know more about their papers than their authors....typical alarmist.

[lakeland27]

  i afraid that you can't just say so and expect posters to believe you. i know andrew does, but only his adoring ''we'll believe anything andy says'' readers are so easily satisfied.

if you have material that verifies that bogus claim, lets see it

Spoiler

(there's no spoiler, i clicked the wrong icon)