Grist for the mill--Climate Change Shenanigans

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by John D Harris Science has not Unanimosly agreed upon it!!!!!!! I can give just as many folks if not more who disagree and have more phd's then the folks that agree with global warming.

Well, there are cooks or eccentrics everywhere, who generally break from their fields, but don't really matter in the end result.

From Wikipedia:

The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that this warming is likely attributable to human influence has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, which include the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries.

I think we can safely make an assessment that science basically agrees on this.

[Luvian]

Originally Posted by John D Harris Pesronally I hope you people get your cap and trade your global warming treaties and all your happy horse manure... Just remember you hear it from me first becareful what you ask for you just might get it.

So you are saying you think global warming is a conspiracy? What arguments do you have to back this accusation?

Science has not Unanimosly agreed upon it!!!!!!! I can give just as many folks if not more who disagree and have more phd's then the folks that agree with global warming.

Go ahead. Give us those sources please. I'd love to see them.

Originally Posted by Cerek It has been stated that BOTH sides of the debate have an agenda. The problem with that admission is that scientists are supposed to be objective and have NO agenda. They are supposed to let the data lead to the conclusion, not the other way around.

That is because scientists are human before being scientists. They aren't robots with no emotions. Of course they can be swayed by their opinions.

As you said yourself; BOTH sides have an agenda. I do not believe any single cause or organization has ever been spot clean. There will always be someone who will think the end results of a cause is more important than the means of getting there.

This goes for the scientists opposing global warming too. If you tell me that of all the people involved it is impossible that someone somewhere in the world fiddled with some data to further his anti global warming agenda I will tell you that you aren't arguing with us in good faith. ALL causes should be viewed with a degree of doubt because they are always made up of emotional human beings.

Does that mean the science supporting Climate Change is inherently flawed and incorrect? Not necessarily. But it does mean the data presented can no longer be completely trusted and any conclusions drawn must be viewed with a very critical eye.

Data should never be completely trusted and conclusions should always be viewed with a critical eye and tested. That is how you advance science.

Originally Posted by Morgeruat A Canadian biochemist I know on a board I moderate on disagrees with the assumption that it's man-made

Well if a "doctor" on the internet said it's true we can wrap this whole argument. No need for proofs or anything, we'll just tell the global community that Dr_bio537 solved the problem for us thanks to his web posting of his opinion. :p

[Wolf Rider2]

So my country having more heatwaves every year is normal? Not having a spring is normal? We're supposed to be a four-season place where I am, but we've only had two-and-a-half. We went straight from ten degrees to forty-three. Is that natural?

I'm on the fence about climate change. I think that there is something happening, and, whatever it is, we are contributing to it. It would be nice for the world to be cleaner, too.

Not that my opinion counts for anything :p

[Chewbacca]

Another thing that nearly drives me batty are polls that ask if people "believe" in global warming like it's the Easter Bunny, Sasquatch, or the Flying Spagetti Monster. WTF!!!!!

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior Well, there are cooks or eccentrics everywhere, who generally break from their fields, but don't really matter in the end result.

And there are always those within the scientific community that label anyone with a dissenting conclusion as kooks and eccentrics. Al Gore even conceded that any scientists that do not concur with the Climate Change crowd are treated as pariahs.

In science, more than most other arenas, contradicting data is supposed to be given equal weight rather than being dismissed as the work of eccentrics. When science arbitrarily begins dismissing contradicting evidence, that is when the prevailing theories and data need to be studied even more critically.

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior From Wikipedia: The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that this warming is likely attributable to human influence has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, which include the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries. I think we can safely make an assessment that science basically agrees on this.

Wikipedia can be edited by anyone and the information is not always verified by their editors. Any time someone makes broad, sweeping statements (such as "includes the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries") that should be an automatic red flag about the veracity of the information. Such sweeping statements are almost always made to create a perception of overwhelming agreement when the truth is often much different.

Listing the actual statements of agreement from the individual academies would be far more convincing.

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by Chewbacca Another thing that nearly drives me batty are polls that ask if people "believe" in global warming like it's the Easter Bunny, Sasquatch, or the Flying Spagetti Monster. WTF!!!!!

Perhaps a more legitimate question would be "Do you believe the data being presented in support of global warming is genuine and objective?"

That could be followed by the question that is really the core of the debate; "Do you believe the actions of mankind are responsible for the reported changes in climate and global temperatures, or are they the result of natural cycles our planet has been experiencing for centuries?"

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by Cerek And there are always those within the scientific community that label anyone with a dissenting conclusion as kooks and eccentrics. Al Gore even conceded that any scientists that do not concur with the Climate Change crowd are treated as pariahs. In science, more than most other arenas, contradicting data is supposed to be given equal weight rather than being dismissed as the work of eccentrics. When science arbitrarily begins dismissing contradicting evidence, that is when the prevailing theories and data need to be studied even more critically. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone and the information is not always verified by their editors. Any time someone makes broad, sweeping statements (such as "includes the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries") that should be an automatic red flag about the veracity of the information. Such sweeping statements are almost always made to create a perception of overwhelming agreement when the truth is often much different. Listing the actual statements of agreement from the individual academies would be far more convincing.

Wikipedia must be backed up, legitimized. You know, because I explained it in-depth to you beforehand when you said the same thing. No use going 'round in circles. If you want to track down the individual statements, feel free to do so.

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by Chewbacca Another thing that nearly drives me batty are polls that ask if people "believe" in global warming like it's the Easter Bunny, Sasquatch, or the Flying Spagetti Monster. WTF!!!!!

What drives me nutty is that the same people can believe in a god without a shred of evidence, yet cannot believe in a process that carries a ton of evidence. Indeed, they will actually become angry if you question their blind faith in something nobody can or ever will prove, all the while insisting it does exist, yet will say they are skeptical of anything to do with global warming which, unbeknownst to them, they are actually witnessing. Yes, witnessing.

Many of these are the same people who also say they don't believe in evolution (wtf?), which is a big bag of oddness in itself. The irony is, when the swine flu comes along they're all rushing to the doctor for science and evolution to help them! (Swine flu is an evolved virus that continues to evolve) Some people are dumb, but don't let their dumbness detract from rational, thinking.

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior Wikipedia must be backed up, legitimized. You know, because I explained it in-depth to you beforehand when you said the same thing. No use going 'round in circles. If you want to track down the individual statements, feel free to do so.

False information has slipped through the cracks before because the editors have such a huge volume of incoming information. By and large, they do a commendable job, given the task they have before them, but unverified and false information has been missed in the past.

As for the assertion about the science academies in every industrialized nation, specific information is simply much more credible than broad, sweeping statements. If these assertions have been made, then it should be a simple matter for the people posting info to include them in their submissions to wiki.

Yes, I could track down these statements on my own, but I'm not the one averring their existence, ergo, I don't bear the burden of proof.

[Chewbacca]

I'm still waiting to see what these emails contain that changes the results of climate science in any discernable way. I've heard alot of insinuation from the already skeptical but still no smoking gun.


Also i have noticed a trend in the right wing press, including the WSJ, omitting the fact these were stolen private emails. The only real crime here gets swept out of the limelight.