How far is “Climatechangedidit” as superficial as creationists who bleat “goddidit”? discussion by Canadian on Alberta forest fires.
My most recent post on the Fort McMurray fire lit up my social media feed and the most interesting replies came from a number of climate activists who suggested that I was going about my blogging all wrong (“walking the wrong way” as one commenter put it). The consensus amongst this minority was that climate change was a sufficiently important topic that we should take advantage of every opportunity to advance the cause. They suggested that when in doubt we blame climate change irrespective of whether the particular issue at hand (in this case the Fort McMurray fire) can actually be directly linked to climate change. My reply was to point out that I simply want to ensure that scientifically defensible data is used in the discussion and for that I was repeatedly called a “denier” and was told that I am “detracting from required action”.
View original post 1,224 more words
Peddling and Scaling God and Darwin 
Some climate change deniers say the increase in temperature over the past half-century is natural, or non-existent, or unimportant. Some climate change enthusiasts (and here I am using the word with its older negative theological overtones) attribute any individual exceptional individual event to climate change.
I regard both of these groups as trolls that should not be fed, and certainly not publicised when we can avoid it.
in passing, let me say that I have come across A Chemist from Langley before, and he does not speak for all chemists
LikeLike
I understand that the enormous fire is creating its own local weather ie lightning – which has started more fires in the tinder dry conditions.
LikeLike
There was also this (citing El Nino, which is natural and cyclical but possibly exacerbated by AGW):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36212145
LikeLike