Is there Proof that Man iS causing "Global Warming"?

please, he might be a spammer, but that doesn't mean he's got no reason, he doesn't need to be a fool by any stretch, because playing a fool while associating one's name with a certain subject can be very useful to discredit and taint that subject.

that said, have you missed my last post?

Originally posted by Long Lance

just one quick question: which should receive more attention, iyo, GW or destruction of habitats?

not trying to nag, i'd just like to know, because imho, it's not so much about who's right, but if what we do is right.

Lance: Perhaps if we could get down to the hard numbers and get a clearer picture of how serious this GW thing really is we could decide about thing slike that. If manmade GW is this foggy picture that we might be causing it, or we ddon't have the foggiest about how much we are, then I'd say we're in little position to judge such things.

I was really hoping we could find out SPECIFICALLY if we're doing it, and then how much we are if we are, and then what specifically what sort of temperature rises we could expect for x amount of CO2.

Maybe after WHEELS is done lecturing us all about economics and fascists we can get to figuring that out...

IIB, thanks for saying that. I was about to say something myself.

So, to continue on with the topic...

Over the last 40 years, I have traveled to Europe a number of times. THe first time I went, England was emerald green, all over. It was the summer. Last time I went, which was summer of 1999, the grass was all dead and brown, everywhere I looked and London was sunny and balmy, over 90 degrees, just like "resort" weather. I was totally shocked over the change and the locals told me that it had been going on for close to 10 years. They attributed it to GW. Same thing with the north of France. So green and beautiful was England that Shakespeare wrote a poem about it, "This Emerald Isle".
Truthfully, it broke my heart. That was when I realized that GW was real and that U.S. hasn't really seen that many changes yet because our climate is so diverse. Maybe that's why the U.S. is the only one even debating the existence of GW.
It's these kind of changes I see when I look around the planet. 45 years ago, I rememeber seeing lots more backyard life such as birds, butterflies, bees, the air was thick with life, humming, buzzing, and flying around. I could also see that the stars were different colors and this was in L.A.
But things have changed in the last 45 years. The local beekeepers are talking about Colony Collapse Disorder and are losing their honeybees. I haven't seen ONE honeybee this summer, and the last 2 summers were full of them. And that's in the heart of the countryside, in NE Tennessee here, one of the most isolated spots in the Appalachians.
Just look around carefully, you will see changes if you've been alive long enough to compare say 30 years ago.
Maybe this isn't considered evidence (although empirical evidence was considered quite valid 100 years ago or so), but seeing it with your own two eyes is pretty powerful evidence for me.

Dig, but the climate changes aren't necessarily manmade Global Warming.

I'm starting to think that the bees thing could have more to do with magnetic field reversal. They shouldn't be bothered by warmer temps... they're cold blooded.

True, good point. I included it because it might be connected to GW.

www.prophecyinthenews.com...
www.prophecyinthenews.com...

A Quote from article link, also a video you can download about the dicussion from a Biblical angle.

The zeal to promote the global warming hypothesis has now assumed the proportions of a religion. Quite simply, it is the worship of the Earth. They view the "big blue marble" as our originator and sustainer. This, of course, is the natural outgrowth of evolutionary theory. If the legendary "billions of years" from primordial ooze to intelligent human society are sufficient to produce mankind as we now know it, then maintaining the environment rises to the level of worship. Under these conditions, environmental stewardship is not merely good sense, it is religious law. "Science" becomes the clergy. Dissent is not tolerated. Already, there is action to silence any scientist who dares oppose the liberal consensus about human activity causing global climate change

Originally posted by The time lord
Dissent is not tolerated. Already, there is action to silence any scientist who dares oppose the liberal consensus about human activity causing global climate change

Sorry, IIB, I'll have to answer this.

Generally, dissent is tolerated, in most instances scepticism is expected. Essentially, science requires a solid scientific argument if it is to make it past a review of peers, that's where your kind of 'dissent' fails.

Why would we want to silence the likes of Kent Hovind and Ernst Beck? It actually provides a lot of laughter. Reading all the reviews of Michael Behe's new book has been providing comedy value for the last week or so.

You can believe you're so special that only a god could create you, that global warming is a sign that the day when you'll float into the sky to sit aside the thrown of zombie jesus is on its way. That's cool. But it ain't science.

But, anyway, back on topic. I think Essan and myself suceeded in the first handful of posts. Seen nothing to question this data. So, we have three clear points that strongly suggest humans are affecting climate. Not much of worth in response.

[edit on 13-6-2007 by melatonin]

WheelsRCool, maybe your should brush up on your Mark Twain. One quote you might run across is:
"It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt." - forestlady

Ad Hominem attacks without any kind of counter-argument to a person who has no in any way thrown a direct insult to you shows your true character and that you can't really make a solid argument.

WheelsRCool: Would you stop destroying my threads? This is the 2nd one in a row now ON THE SAME SPECIFIC TOPIC. - IgnoranceIsBliss

I never de-railed your first thread. You yourself even acknowledged that, then just flat-out insulted me in that thread, than erased your insult afterwards. Then you insulted me AGAIN in a follow-up post. Furthermore, AGAIN, I never mentioned things that were not mentioned in this thread. I gave a response to what forestlady had written (why don't you criticize her for her original post?) and to what someone else (I forget their name) had written about "attacking scientists." I wrote WHY people such as myself are very skeptical of said scientists. That didn't really have anything to do with the thread either, but again, you didn't attack them.

I don't think it's really a matter of what is written, I think you just dislike me.

There's the other thread for you to present evidence that man isn't causing global warming. In here you can scrutinize the data the other side presents.

Why don't you try to PROVE that man isn't IN THE PROPER THREAD? Why must you jump all over this thread spewing your filthy conjecture all over the place attackign things that nobdy mentioned?

Um....because my "filthy conjecture" (third attack in a row from you!) has consisted of responses (note: RESPONSES) to subjects others had already brought up.

Could be because you're already screamed ove rand over your feelings about the GW as nazism? You prove yourself a selfish fool by mucking up this discussion without even proving your own views in a thread designed to let you get your argument out in without what you're doing here.

Selfish fool? (Fourth attack!) And nope, I didn't "muck up" the discussion, I have only responded to what people have written. Anyways, if you want a good read on how global warming is related to Nazism, read here: www.lewrockwell.com...

Don't even respond here. Please. Go prove that man isn't causing it in the proper thread, and scrutinize any bad data they post over here. Then we can all decide on what is really going on. If you continue here you prove that you don't have a leg to stand on.

How does continuing here "prove" that one "doesn't have a leg to stand on?" Again, I am not presenting evidence on how humans are not causing global warming. I am RESPONDING to posts people have made.

If people make posts that are not really correct, someone has to point out the inaccuracies, otherwise it can lead to wrong views from readers.

Two different threads with opposing viewpoints will not provide as much information as directly debating information, unless you copy the things written by people in one thread and post them in the other thread and debate them.

And don't get me wrong, I'd love to easily prove the GW is bs and that the Dem's llike Al Gore are engaging in intentional terrormongering disinfo. But that doesn't mean I'm going to be a biased fool and subvert all reason. You're not making it any easier, and you're making your position look foolish.

I do not see how my position is in any way foolish, if you are implying that I am a "biased fool" and "subverting all reason" (and I take those as more attacks/insults). I have simply given counter-arguments to what I see as misinformation. To the contrary, I see myself as the person who helps keep everyone within reason.

Maybe after WHEELS is done lecturing us all about economics and fascists we can get to figuring that out...

If you re-read my posts, you see I mentioned economics because someone mentioned about "attacks" on scientists presenting information that the person doesn't like; I mentioned that GW research has direct policy implications and economic implications, which is WHY people are so skeptical of said scientists.

My saying that was a RESPONSE to what someone else wrote. You are acting as if I just have randomly made posts de-railing your thread, which is completely untrue.

cont'd





[edit on 13-6-2007 by WheelsRCool]

forestladyIIB, thanks for saying that. I was about to say something myself.

So, to continue on with the topic...

Over the last 40 years, I have traveled to Europe a number of times. THe first time I went, England was emerald green, all over. It was the summer. Last time I went, which was summer of 1999, the grass was all dead and brown, everywhere I looked and London was sunny and balmy, over 90 degrees, just like "resort" weather. I was totally shocked over the change and the locals told me that it had been going on for close to 10 years. They attributed it to GW. Same thing with the north of France. So green and beautiful was England that Shakespeare wrote a poem about it, "This Emerald Isle".
Truthfully, it broke my heart. That was when I realized that GW was real and that U.S. hasn't really seen that many changes yet because our climate is so diverse. Maybe that's why the U.S. is the only one even debating the existence of GW.

Actually, the U.S. debates it because the science is not so accurate. If the science is so irrefutable, than why does someone such as Michael Mann refuse to publish his data for public scrutiny, for instance? If his work is irrefutable, it should produce consistent results with what he has found.

And the weather changing and certain areas warming is NOT necessarily "global warming." The Earth could well be in a warming trend that is changing the weather that is not Global Warming. Global Warming is a theory that states that greenhouse gases released into the upper atmosphere will heat up the lower atmosphere by trapping heat from the Sun.

But there are other factors, the Earth warms and cools itself (it has numerous times throughout history), the Sun changes it's sunspot activity (which changes the Earth's weather patterns), there are greenhouse gases released from the Earth itself, etc...

The fact that you just automatically "realized" that the supposed changing weather over in England is because of global warming seems rather simple-minded to me, since there could be plenty of other factors at work.

The Earth can well be warming up and the weather changing, that doesn't mean it is global warming at all.

It's these kind of changes I see when I look around the planet. 45 years ago, I rememeber seeing lots more backyard life such as birds, butterflies, bees, the air was thick with life, humming, buzzing, and flying around. I could also see that the stars were different colors and this was in L.A.
But things have changed in the last 45 years. The local beekeepers are talking about Colony Collapse Disorder and are losing their honeybees. I haven't seen ONE honeybee this summer, and the last 2 summers were full of them. And that's in the heart of the countryside, in NE Tennessee here, one of the most isolated spots in the Appalachians.
Just look around carefully, you will see changes if you've been alive long enough to compare say 30 years ago.

Hmm, so you magically attribute the suspected general warming of the Earth (which you magically attribute to humans) with somehow killing honeybees and birds?

The bees might have just moved from your area even, as this happens.

This is one of the things I was talking about before. People count life in one little area, than it leaves and they immediately thing it's died off, when in reality, it just moved.

Also, I'd have to disagree, STRONGLY. Up here in Upstate, NY, we've got plenty of honeybees. I know because I keep killing them. And birds. My pet cat goes crazy over them, as they always take paths in the puddles outside in the driveway. I also have a friend out in California who said the same things, he keeps killing the bees around him as well.

Maybe this isn't considered evidence (although empirical evidence was considered quite valid 100 years ago or so), but seeing it with your own two eyes is pretty powerful evidence for me.

You mean what passes for empirical evidence these days is different than what passed 100 years ago. One person's two eyes don't mean a thing, because other people can see things differently, such as me.


[edit on 13-6-2007 by WheelsRCool]

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by The time lord
Dissent is not tolerated. Already, there is action to silence any scientist who dares oppose the liberal consensus about human activity causing global climate change

Sorry, IIB, I'll have to answer this.

Generally, dissent is tolerated, in most instances scepticism is expected. Essentially, science requires a solid argument if it is to make it past a review of peers, that's where your kind of 'dissent' fails.

Why would we want to silence the likes of Kent Hovind and Ernst Beck? It actually provides a lot of laughter. Reading all the reviews of Michael Behe's new book has been providing comedy value for the last week or so.

You can believe you're so special that only a god could create you, that global warming is a sign that the day when you'll float into the sky to sit aside the thrown of zombie jesus is on its way. That's cool. But it ain't science.

But, anyway, back on topic. I think Essan and myself suceeded in the first handful of posts. Seen nothing to question this data. So, we have three clear points that strongly suggest humans are affecting climate. Not much in response.

[edit on 13-6-2007 by melatonin]

There was a certain scientist who received death threats for talking against global warming. The Weather Channel's Heidi Cullen has said any meteorologist who doesn't believe in global warming should have their AMA license removed. Look in magazines such as Vanity Fair or Men's Adventure Life. They all, instead of giving intellectual critiques of global warming skeptics, instead pretty much have demonized them.

Those are just a few examples off the top of my head. Dissent is not tolerated amongst those who believe fervently in global warming.

Originally posted by WheelsRCool
Those are just a few examples off the top of my head. Dissent is not tolerated amongst those who believe fervently in global warming.

So you have an example of some idiot sending a death threat, some media whore gaining attention, and a few mainstream magazines being nasty to contrarians. OK.

On the other side we have people calling scientists frauds and being gagged by the political machine in the US.

Dissent is tolerated generally, in fact, scepticism is expected. Denial doesn't go down too well though. Most of the contrarians who had an academic job still have one, no-one has been removed AFAIK, all that is expected is that real science is done with proper scholarship. That's how integrity is gained and retained.

[edit on 13-6-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by WheelsRCool
Those are just a few examples off the top of my head. Dissent is not tolerated amongst those who believe fervently in global warming.

So you have an example of some idiot sending a death threat, some media whore gaining attention, and a few mainstream magazines being nasty to contrarians. OK.

On the other side we have people calling scientists frauds and being gagged by the political machine in the US.

Dissent is tolerated generally, in fact, scepticism is expected. Denial doesn't go down too well though. Most of the contrarians who had an academic job still have one, no-one has been removed AFAIK, all that is expected is that real science is done with proper scholarship. That's how integrity is gained and retained.

[edit on 13-6-2007 by melatonin]

Also Michael Mann seems to not like critics, evidenced in an article of Scientific American,, where he said the following: "“From an intellectual point of view, these contrarians are pathetic, because there’s no scientific validity to their arguments whatsoever,” Mann says. “But they’re very skilled at deducing what sorts of disingenuous arguments and untruths are likely to be believable to the public that doesn’t know better.”

Yet he still refuses to publish his own work for public review. If he is going to criticize others, he'd better make public his own work, especially if it is funded by public money and a lot more money is being spent to validate his claims. Otherwise, he is not doing science, he is making an opinion.

Originally posted by WheelsRCool
Also Michael Mann seems to not like critics, evidenced in an article of Scientific American,, where he said the following: "“From an intellectual point of view, these contrarians are pathetic, because there’s no scientific validity to their arguments whatsoever,” Mann says. “But they’re very skilled at deducing what sorts of disingenuous arguments and untruths are likely to be believable to the public that doesn’t know better.”

I think it more a case of not suffering fools gladly.

Yet he still refuses to publish his own work for public review. If he is going to criticize others, he'd better make public his own work, especially if it is funded by public money and a lot more money is being spent to validate his claims. Otherwise, he is not doing science, he is making an opinion.

Is it the case that only in one area of science is this expected?

If you want this it will need to be applied to all scientists.

Science is reviewed at many stages, when applications are made for funding, it may go to a government funding agency, this will possess a board of reviewers in the appropriate area who assess the scientific integity of the proposal and whether it will have any value. If funded, the progress is usually reveiwed. When completed it is reviewed. When the work is submitted for publication it undergoes further review. When published, it is further reviewed by the relevant scientific area (by replication or citation).

Do you expect this of any other government funding? When Bush applies for continued funding for the war in Iraq, do the public get a direct say so? When billions of dollars go to 'star wars' missile system research? Or is it a case of public representatives overseeing this process? This is generally the way in most such things. We appoint representatives who make decisions for us.

Science funding is sort of similar. The representatives are usually appointed by government people, they find respected scientists to peer-review proposals. If the scientist produces crap, he will not be funded; just like if the government is crap, they won't be voted.

[edit on 13-6-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by WheelsRCool

WheelsRCool: Would you stop destroying my threads? This is the 2nd one in a row now ON THE SAME SPECIFIC TOPIC. - IgnoranceIsBliss

I never de-railed your first thread. You yourself even acknowledged that,

That's an absolute lie. I reiterated in every response that's what you were doing, and then you used those as excuse to derail as you are here.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
This is about proving Global Warming. Is it possible? This is about scrutinizing the strongest data from the 'pro-Global Warming' view.

I cannot be more clear: This isn't about rhetoric, or opinions, or anything but hard facts. In fact, it's not even about evidence that shows otherwise. It's about intensely scrutinizing the best data that supports it, so that we can truly understand it.

I've started a sibling thread for the data that supports it:
Is there Proof that Man isn't causing "Global Warming"?
I made a poor attempt at starting 'our thread here now' earlier, but it was killed by derailment.

The idea is that we can have straightforward analysis of the best supporting data from each side, in seperate threads, and then synthecize the truth from the results. I can't promise this won't be derailed, as I'm just a member too, but I hope that this can succeed as an "efficient inquiry".

The topic of this thread is trying to prove global warming is manmade

WheelsRCool: Quote yourself and show me where you've actually contributed.

then just flat-out insulted me in that thread, than erased your insult afterwards.

Yup. First I called you a liar, because you were lying. Then, I said that you were a selfish proimprialist scumbag, and tat you knew exactly what you were doing except you were playing dumb the same way that Bush plays dumb while he's more a conman than a fool.


I'm not going to waste any more time on you. Now post a huge 3 page follow up to kill off this thread once and for all, just like you did with the last one.

[edit on 13-6-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by melatonin
Is it the case that only in one area of science is this expected?

If you want this it will need to be applied to all scientists.

I agree. The thing with Mann is he makes many claims but he should release his work to the public so all scientists can review it. If it is accurate, there shouldn't be a problem, I would think.

Do you expect this of any other government funding? When Bush applies for continued funding for the war in Iraq, do the public get a direct say so? When billions of dollars go to 'star wars' missile system research? Or is it a case of public representatives overseeing this process? This is generally the way in most such things. We appoint representatives who make decisions for us.

In a sense, because they can vote officials out.

Science funding is sort of similar. The representatives are usually appointed by government people, they find respected scientists to peer-review proposals. If the scientist produces crap, he will not be funded; just like if the government is crap, they won't be voted.

True, but science is a bit different than policy. Science is what influences policy, especially global warming.

If a politician does crappy things, the public is usually fully aware of it, and they will vote the politician out.

With science, it should for the most part be the same way. The scientist should test their hypothesis, and publish their work and put it up for the public to review it; this way if a scientist says, "We need to enact Policy A because of this and this reasons," if their work is published, if other scientists disagree, they can say, "Wait a minute though, we can't do that, because this and this of the work is debatable."

If instead, the work of the scientist is meerly peer-reviewed by scientists selected by government officials, this presents numerous problems. For one, it allows bias to creep into the science. The government official can choose scientists with specific biases to support their viewpoints moreso. Also, how can a specific group of scientists determine if a scientist's work is "crap" or not, especially if they could be biased? You want the work available to all scientists to spark free debate. And third, since the bias can be there, it can influence the scientist performing the work to subconsciously slant their work to please their funders.

Remember, government agencies seek to spend as much money as they can, so they can demand more. Government officials will thus choose scientists who support the viewpoint of their organization, who will then give grants to scientists supporting their viewpoints. And those scientists getting the grants will slant their work to keep getting funding.

What we need is completely double-blind experimentation, IMO.

[edit on 13-6-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
That's an absolute lie. I reiterated in every response that's what you were doing, and then you used those as excuse to derail as you are here.

At first you did, but then I gave examples showing I wasn't derailing your thread. You then said something on the order of, "Fine, I can pick and choose to," then you gave some examples, then you insulted me. And I am not de-railing here. Making responses to subjects brought up by other people is not derailing.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
This is about proving Global Warming. Is it possible? This is about scrutinizing the strongest data from the 'pro-Global Warming' view.

I cannot be more clear: This isn't about rhetoric, or opinions, or anything but hard facts. In fact, it's not even about evidence that shows otherwise. It's about intensely scrutinizing the best data that supports it, so that we can truly understand it.

I've started a sibling thread for the data that supports it:
Is there Proof that Man isn't causing "Global Warming"?
I made a poor attempt at starting 'our thread here now' earlier, but it was killed by derailment.

The idea is that we can have straightforward analysis of the best supporting data from each side, in seperate threads, and then synthecize the truth from the results. I can't promise this won't be derailed, as I'm just a member too, but I hope that this can succeed as an "efficient inquiry".

I agree, but that is impossible if people give the wrong information. If people just make blatant statements saying extinctions are happening, scientists are being blamed wrongly, etc...that IMO are wrong, or have a lot of room for error, then I feel obligated to point this out. Because it would not be pointed out in the other thread.

The topic of this thread is trying to prove global warming is manmade

WheelsRCool: Quote yourself and show me where you've actually contributed.

Look at any of my points, I have contributed information.

Yup. First I called you a liar, because you were lying. Then, I said that you were a selfish proimprialist scumbag, and tat you knew exactly what you were doing except you were playing dumb the same way that Bush plays dumb while he's more a conman than a fool.

Nope, I wasn't lying, and calling me a liar was not an insult. "Selfish imperialist scumbag" is though But you also insulted lobbed out another more offensive insult, and said you didn't care if you got a warning.

I'm not going to waste any more time on you. Now post a huge 3 page follow up to kill off this thread once and for all, just like you did with the last one.

Tell you what, if you REALLY want your threads to adhere to their titles, then the second anyone posts something without any hard facts or evidence, you need to scold them. Otherwise, it's only natural for others to jump in to refute.

[edit on 13-6-2007 by WheelsRCool]

Originally posted by WheelsRCool
If instead, the work of the scientist is meerly peer-reviewed by scientists selected by government officials, this presents numerous problems. For one, it allows bias to creep into the science. The government official can choose scientists with specific biases to support their viewpoints moreso. Also, how can a specific group of scientists determine if a scientist's work is "crap" or not, especially if they could be biased? You want the work available to all scientists to spark free debate. And third, since the bias can be there, it can influence the scientist performing the work to subconsciously slant their work to please their funders.

Remember, government agencies seek to spend as much money as they can, so they can demand more. Government officials will thus choose scientists who support the viewpoint of their organization, who will then give grants to scientists supporting their viewpoints. And those scientists getting the grants will slant their work to keep getting funding.

What we need is completely double-blind experimentation, IMO.

The work is available to all scientists, not all data is, but the results are. If anybody wants to find out whether the data is robust, they can go and collect data themselves.

Science is cool, the problem is when it treads on the toes of political @sses. Then it all becomes a problem. We don't need their interference, we have done fine without it from the first experiments performed.

If any science is crap, scientists will show it to be. There is too much riding on this stuff for people to become entrenched, Nobel prizes, tenure, papers in the top journals. All are for grabs for the next big finding. If any science is flaky, people are there grubbing away collecting data finding out what nature tells us. There is soooo much competition.

I see you're a good reader of Crichton with the double blind nonsense. How the hell are we going to double blind this stuff? What do we do? One person collect the data, one person analyse the data, one person interpret the data, one person write the paper. BS. Who's going to pay for 2 or 3 more post-docs in every lab, in every department, in every university, in every country?

You seem to have a very strange view of what science is. We don't dictate policy. We will say 'hey, look this is what we found, we infer X'. If politicians want to listen, entirely up to them, I couldn't care less. All science is easily reviewed by other scientists. We go and test anything we question. If someone thinks someone's data need replication, they can go and do so. Nothing to stop them. Science is not performed by democracy. The results are out there, it's all in journals for others to read and take notice of.

Science is fine, only when it fails to confirm to the pre-existing worldview of some political ideologues is there an issue. Leave us alone and we'll do our job. The political windbags can do theirs.

[edit on 13-6-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by WheelsRCool
divert, etc

response to your baited diversion

You see even the people who were participating are all now diverted into your world WheelsRUS. You think I can't figure you out? You plotted the derailment the last thread. You found one little hole and spurted out a long post with every emotional trigger and diversive line one could. Then people started responding and after they did you stretched those out until I finally stepped in to stop it, and you used my attemptes to for yet more derailment fodder. You rode the entire thread out from teh beginning of page 1 into page 3 from your planted seeds. But last time I made a mistake and mentioned Bush.

This time I left you no room. So you carefully tossed in a couple little short posts to make it appear as if you were actually interested in some data, which is what this thread is about hard data AND NOT POLITICS ETC, and then you went right back into attack mode spewwing heresay and speaking of economics and propaganda etc. Just like in the last thread you destroyed, you haven't even made a single citation or contributed any actual links or data besides something about nazi's which has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. You refute things with staunch words, not resources and data.

You lied in the other thread, you lied in this thread about that thread, and then you did again and added more lies, as if you can tell me what I did or didn't say, and you're up to your same exact diversive BS. You're doing this deliberately. Since you haven't even contributed to the thread that supports your view my claim speaks for itself. You're not here to contribute, you're here to derail this thread which opposes your worldview if they can succeed.


PS: You couldn't even quote yourself, how pathetic.


[edit on 13-6-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

As I said earlier IIB, good data has been presented already. No-one has a decent response to it. If you have any questions I'll do my best to answer.

I do apologise for responding to the OT stuff. But sometimes I feel I have to.

So basically, what people need to do is show that CO2 is not a GHG (and all the human-sourced GHGs), that black carbon will not alter albedo, that contrails do not affect climate, that land use changes are not affecting climate.

Alternatively, they need to present an adequate natural mechanism to account for ALL of the current warming.

But I can promise you, they will not be able to do this with science. That is why there is a scientific consensus. It doesn't mean we are 110% certain, science has difficulty in providing such certainties, but there is nothing in the scientific literature to question what the IPCC and almost all the scientific organisations are telling us, that we are affecting climate significantly. There is more uncertainty as to the exact contribution of each variable, whether CO2 is 20%, 30%, 40%, 50% of the contribution for example, but whether this and other human factors are an influence is pretty much settled for now.

Like evolution, they will attempt to pick apart small parts with cherrypicked data, falsehoods, and intellectual dishonesty.

[edit on 13-6-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
The work is available to all scientists, not all data is, but the results are. If anybody wants to find out whether the data is robust, they can go and collect data themselves.

I'd have to disagree. Scientists should be able to scrutinize the data, to make sure the scientist did his work correctly, especially if said scientist's results are influencing policy.

If any science is crap, scientists will show it to be. There is too much riding on this stuff for people to become entrenched, Nobel prizes, tenure, papers in the top journals. All are for grabs for the next big finding. If any science is flaky, people are there grubbing away collecting data finding out what nature tells us. There is soooo much competition.

I agree, but I don't think if the science is crap, that scientists will find it to be. Look at the eugenics movement. No scientists found that to be crap. After the Nazis killed a bunch of people, the science was then investigated from a different viewpoint and found to be very falsified.

But at the time, anyone who said eugenics was phony was considered borderline crazy.

On the contrary, I think many scientists may be afraid to go against the consensus precisely because of what you said, things like tenure, funding, career-advancement, etc...they know their peers will ruin their career if they come forward.

I see you're a good reader of Crichton with the double blind nonsense. How the hell are we going to double blind this stuff? What do we do? One person collect the data, one person analyse the data, one person interpret the data, one person write the paper. BS. Who's going to pay for 2 or 3 more post-docs in every lab, in every department, in every university, in every country?

Good points, however, double-blind is conducted in medical research (though medical research is very restrained by regulation too...maybe that is some of the regulation?). I think for double-blind research, one group of scientists should conduct the research, another group should conduct it (neither aware of the other), then a group review the results (without knowing who did the research).

If not, then more reason why scientists should publish their data.

You seem to have a very strange view of what science is. We don't dictate policy. We will say 'hey, look this is what we found, we infer X'. If politicians want to listen, entirely up to them, I couldn't care less. All science is easily reviewed by other scientists. We go and test anything we question. If someone thinks someone's data need replication, they can go and do so. Nothing to stop them. Science is not performed by democracy. The results are out there, it's all in journals for others to read and take notice of.

Science such as global warming is very influential on policymakers though. And no, if one thinks data needs replication, they can't just go and do so, they may need funding, which they may be unable to get.

Science is fine, only when it fails to confirm to the pre-existing worldview of some political ideologues is there an issue. Leave us alone and we'll do our job. The political windbags can do theirs.

No, we cannot. Letting scientists "do their job" is what killed millions of Jews. Scientific data should be up for public scrutiny, so people can ask questions, especially when that science is being used by said windbags to shape policy.

Scientists are human, they are subject to bias, even if they try to avoid it.