[robertthebard]

Originally Posted by Timber Loftis Maybe you were being a bit naive. http://www.envirowiki.info/Old_growt...ific_northwest http://news.mongabay.com/2010/0302-coal-nasa.html Ah,yes, the old tired argument that the sky didn't fall so you must be right. Or, maybe.... the more likely truth is that Brazil and other S. Am. countries cracked down on deforestation so as to avert catastrophe, at least to some degree. See, that's why chicken little's point out that the sky is falling -- so someone can help stop it.

It's funny, but Cerek took the words right off my fingers. I don't think of Chicken Little when I think about the run of the mill GCC science, I do think of the boy that cried wolf. They've been wrong so many times that when they are right, it's likely nobody will notice, except for the members of the Universal Church of Climate Change, who sincerely believe that they've been right every time, despite not having an Ice Age in the '70's, despite not having a record year for violent storms, etc etc etc.

Originally Posted by Cerek Just because someone is a GCC scientist doesn't make him/her one of the most brilliant minds of our time....especially when the actions of some of the more prominent GCC scientists could be considered questionable at best. Some of them have shown they are more interested in saving their status than saving the world. There is also the fact that, even if GW is occurring, it doesn't necessarily mean the end of the world is imminent. It just means the world may be undergoing a change that we need to be aware of and we need to determine what measures (if any) we can or should take to either reduce the impact of these changes or adapt to them the best we can. TL has admitted environmental scientists often use the Chicken Little cry of "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" and then claim the only reason it didn't fall is because they raised the alarm high enough and loud enough to prompt action that prevented it. Unfortunately, that claim can often be contradicted by facts and data, like it was in this thread. Meanwhile, when the sky doesn't fall after all, skeptics tend to be like the villagers in the boy that cried "Wolf" and think "It wasn't really happening last time, so there is no reason to think that it is happening now." In the end, the Chicken Little approach undermines the credibility of the scientists, whether they are brilliant or not.

Took the concept right off my fingers. Some of the "scientists" doing GCC research are no better than some of the quacks they summarily dismiss.

As a side note here, I don't think predicting things that don't happen makes one brilliant. Considering the legitimate scientific advances in our time, I don't think "playing craps" with science compares to the invention of rocket science, or the significant advances in the medical sciences. Hell, the advances in computer technology over the last 50 years overshadows anything that is being passed on as science in GCC. I'm reminded of an old addage I heard back when I was in school: Those that can, do. Those that can't teach. Considering most of the people sitting on the panel that is considered the authoritative resource for GCC information are teachers, that do none of their own research speaks volumes. Not that most of those guys aren't smarter than me, mind you, they were smart enough to get jobs as yes men that pay them significantly more than I made when I was working.