• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Man Made Global Warming Skeptics to Meet in Australia

Whoozyerdaddy

Whoozyerdaddy

Lifer
Link

"Environmentalism has largely superseded Christianity as the religion of the upper classes in Europe and to a lesser extent in the United States," Mr Evans says in the publication.

"It is a form of religious belief which fosters a sense of moral superiority in the believer, but which places no importance on telling the truth," he says.

"The global warming scam has been, arguably, the most extraordinary example of scientific fraud in the postwar period."
Click to expand...
I couldn't have said it better myself. As I've posted here before, scientific papers with evidence that contradicts the "church's" hard line stance on man being the sole culprit for GW are not being published and in many cases are not even being granted peer review.

And before you guys break out the flame throwers... my argument against this man-made global warming kick the scientific community has been on for the last 20 years has nothing to do with any spcific scientific study. It has to do with the total absense of debate on the subject despite the lack of hard, undisputed evidence to support such conclusions.

In short, it's bad science. The suppression of contratrian evidence and viewpoints is not good science.

Good for these guys for coming together to share and exchange ideas. I'm glad to see people coming out of the closet (as it were) on this issue.

 
I agree that all of the hocus-pocus surrounding man-made global warming is disturbing. However, I'm not sure that forming two isolated camps is really going to achieve anything other than essentially blacklisting all of the members of the smaller camp. This is happening more and more frequently in science in general and is a very disturbing trend.
 
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I agree that all of the hocus-pocus surrounding man-made global warming is disturbing. However, I'm not sure that forming two isolated camps is really going to achieve anything other than essentially blacklisting all of the members of the smaller camp. This is happening more and more frequently in science in general and is a very disturbing trend.
Click to expand...

Point is, for the most part they are already black listed. They can't get peer reviewed much less published. Governments aren't handing out grants for climate studies that don't paint a catastrophic picture of doom and gloom created by man. Conferences like this are probably the only way that their side of the picture can be shown.
 
HARD-CORE global warming sceptics will descend on Canberra today for the release of a book claiming environmentalism is the new religion..

Are you Hard-Core? What all of 10 idiots coming together !!! Haha How is this NEWS???

Environmentalism has largely superseded Christianity as the religion of the upper classes in Europe and to a lesser extent in the United States," Mr Evans says in the publication.

"It is a form of religious belief which fosters a sense of moral superiority in the believer, but which places no importance on telling the truth," he says.

Sounds to me like a few hard core christains are pissed off that a few people are breaking ranks... Some are even going a bit further thinking that christianity is not telling the truth...

I dunno... I'd rather take environmentalism then christianity ANY day....

So.... WHAT is Your Point?





I wonder if this has anything due to Australia to Ban Sale of Incandescent Light Bulbs
 
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Point is, for the most part they are already black listed. They can't get peer reviewed much less published. Governments aren't handing out grants for climate studies that don't paint a catastrophic picture of doom and gloom created by man. Conferences like this are probably the only way that their side of the picture can be shown.
Click to expand...
Right, but they're showing it to people who already agree with them, so what's the point? In my research area, there are about 10 labs worldwide. Probably 7 labs agree with the 150-year-old theory, so the other 3 labs just don't bother to show up when we have an international meeting every 2 years. As a result, this meeting ends up being a commercial for the people who already agree with themselves and nothing is accomplished. It ends up being a big circle jerk because no one is really debating anything. They're just patting themselves on the back for scaring the other guys away. Like you said, this is just bad science. But the guys who avoid the meeting are just as bad, because they are failing to uphold their duty as scientists to challenge the status quo. If they really have data that contradicts this theory, then they have an ethical duty to present it and stir things up.
 
"Environmentalism has largely superseded Christianity as the religion of the upper classes in Europe and to a lesser extent in the United States," Mr Evans says in the publication.
Click to expand...
That would be a major improvement in the state of religion. At least the practitioners are more grounded in reality than fantasy and more concerned with saving humanity than waging war on anyone who doesn't agree with their particular fantasy.
"It is a form of religious belief which fosters a sense of moral superiority in the believer, but which places no importance on telling the truth," he says.
Click to expand...
Ummm... < cough > Jerry Falwell... Pat Robertson... Ted Haggard... and of course, George W. Bush. :laugh:
"The global warming scam has been, arguably, the most extraordinary example of scientific fraud in the postwar period."
Click to expand...
You posted it. You prove it. :thumbsdown: :roll: :thumbsdown:
 
Originally posted by: ericlp
HARD-CORE global warming sceptics will descend on Canberra today for the release of a book claiming environmentalism is the new religion..

Are you Hard-Core? What all of 10 idiots coming together !!! Haha How is this NEWS???
Click to expand...
I think the above pretty much sums up what the OP was saying.
Even question whether global warming is man made and you are an idiot.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Even question whether global warming is man made and you are an idiot.
Click to expand...
That has to be the single most intelligent thing you've ever posted... even if you probably don't mean it. 😛
 
People who question the Holocaust are blacklisted as well. I'd imagine the same with people who question the harsh treatment of slaves in America. Sometimes there are just too many facts to refute. Saying grandiose, self-effacing things without actual backup (like this motley, holier-than-thou crew of individuals who want to be 'different' and 'special') is one thing, actually proving it is another. All they have to do to be 'right' is to say "Oh, but there's not enough evidence to show man is causing global warming". It's a lot harder for the non-skeptics. Difference between the global warming skeptics and, say, the WMD-in-Iraq skeptics is that there are actual mounds of evidence backing up man-made global warming.

It just comes to a point where denying it is a useless nuisance. We're almost at that point now.
 
Which has more evidence backing it up, global warming or a boat several thousand years ago that was big enough to hold 2 of every animal for 40 days? Pretty simple for me.
 
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
How did I know that my comments in the OP would fly right over some people's heads? Thanks for proving my point guys. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that it was just too intellectual for the dumb folks here, I think the problem is that it's a silly point. Rather than raising any scientific argument, you're arguing against the vast majority of serious scientists by suggesting that that fact that most of them agree is suspicious. In other words, your argument is that ALL scientific debate must have more than one equally valid viewpoint, and any ABSENCE of that second viewpoint must be due to some sort of grand conspiracy theory among members of the scientific community. By your logic, the fact that the earth rotates around the sun must be suspect since virtually all scientists agree on that point.

Just because you are able to rationalize ignoring the evidence does not make it cease to exist. Yes, there is little hard and fast certainty of the type non-science folks always seem to expect from science, but the evidence is pretty damning...which might better explain why the only people you hear making arguments against the scientific community tend to be fiction authors like Michael Crichton. Clearly we need to examine what's going on a little deeper, but there seems little question that we are artificially changing the environment. What we really need to do is for the science folks to be allowed to do their research without loudmouths who don't know what they are talking about from turning this into a political football. And yes, I'm talking about you. If you really understood the debate, you might realize that no one is making the argument that we are the SOLE cause of global climate change.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for reasoned, informed, scientific debate. I just don't happen to think we're going to get a lot of it from people like you or those jokers in Australia. Nobody is keeping serious scientists with serious objections shut out, those people simply don't exist.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: ericlp
HARD-CORE global warming sceptics will descend on Canberra today for the release of a book claiming environmentalism is the new religion..

Are you Hard-Core? What all of 10 idiots coming together !!! Haha How is this NEWS???
Click to expand...
I think the above pretty much sums up what the OP was saying.
Even question whether global warming is man made and you are an idiot.
Click to expand...

I don't believe a true scientist would be stupid enough not to see all the mounting evidence of the effects man is having on global warming...

Stay the course.... Drum beat.... Well, maybe some christian science monitor member might have those views but you can't mix religion and science...

No Heaven No Hell - Just Science!

 
Like I have said, if I become president of the United States, i am going to be sworn in on the "Man made global warming bible". It has turned from scientific to political to religious.

Reading the scenarios of doom and gloom from the fatihful and how we need to repent for our fossil fuel ways makes me think I am listening to preachers preach about revelations and our need to repent our sins because Christ comes back to earth. Of course in this instance Christ is the upcomming destruction of our planet. It hasnt happened but keep waiting, he is coming, our faith says so!

 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Like I have said, if I become president of the United States, i am going to be sworn in on the "Man made global warming bible". It has turned from scientific to political to religious.

Reading the scenarios of doom and gloom from the fatihful and how we need to repent for our fossil fuel ways makes me think I am listening to preachers preach about revelations and our need to repent our sins because Christ comes back to earth. Of course in this instance Christ is the upcomming destruction of our planet. It hasnt happened but keep waiting, he is coming, our faith says so!
Click to expand...

Keep talking, every time you open your big mouth and something other than a scientific argument pops out, you seem less and less credible. I'm a scientist, and I didn't use to buy into the global climate change theory...until I realized that it was an argument between mounds and mounds of peer reviewed, expert data and un-scientific loudmouths like you with nothing to offer but a very low signal to noise ratio and personal attacks. But for a point that's SO obvious, you guys sure don't seem to produce a lot of science to back it up...just metric tons of bullshit.
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Genx87
Like I have said, if I become president of the United States, i am going to be sworn in on the "Man made global warming bible". It has turned from scientific to political to religious.

Reading the scenarios of doom and gloom from the fatihful and how we need to repent for our fossil fuel ways makes me think I am listening to preachers preach about revelations and our need to repent our sins because Christ comes back to earth. Of course in this instance Christ is the upcomming destruction of our planet. It hasnt happened but keep waiting, he is coming, our faith says so!
Click to expand...

Keep talking, every time you open your big mouth and something other than a scientific argument pops out, you seem less and less credible. I'm a scientist, and I didn't use to buy into the global climate change theory...until I realized that it was an argument between mounds and mounds of peer reviewed, expert data and un-scientific loudmouths like you with nothing to offer but a very low signal to noise ratio and personal attacks. But for a point that's SO obvious, you guys sure don't seem to produce a lot of science to back it up...just metric tons of bullshit.
Click to expand...

case in point

thanks
 
Originally posted by: Aisengard
People who question the Holocaust are blacklisted as well. I'd imagine the same with people who question the harsh treatment of slaves in America. Sometimes there are just too many facts to refute. Saying grandiose, self-effacing things without actual backup (like this motley, holier-than-thou crew of individuals who want to be 'different' and 'special') is one thing, actually proving it is another. All they have to do to be 'right' is to say "Oh, but there's not enough evidence to show man is causing global warming". It's a lot harder for the non-skeptics. Difference between the global warming skeptics and, say, the WMD-in-Iraq skeptics is that there are actual mounds of evidence backing up man-made global warming.

It just comes to a point where denying it is a useless nuisance. We're almost at that point now.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the question is: have we come to that point by way of a real, ethical scientific progress or simple railroading of dissenters? If you don't let me publish my data that shows global warming is a natural phenomena and you publish your data showing that it's manmade, your data is now on the books and mine is only present in my lab notebook. That doesn't mean that my data is wrong - it just means that you were too afraid of losing your funding to publish my data.

I'm not saying I disagree with the hypothesis that man is a contributor to climate change, I'm just saying that a lot of people have a grossly oversimplified and totally unrealistic view of the scientific review process. As someone struggling to get my findings published in an unfriendly reviewing environment, I can definitely see how editors can make their viewpoints 'factual' by controlling who gets published and who doesn't. If you've never had to endure the modern peer review process, I'm not sure you will ever fully understand the nuances that determine what is considered modern 'scientific fact.'
 
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Link

"Environmentalism has largely superseded Christianity as the religion of the upper classes in Europe and to a lesser extent in the United States," Mr Evans says in the publication.

"It is a form of religious belief which fosters a sense of moral superiority in the believer, but which places no importance on telling the truth," he says.

"The global warming scam has been, arguably, the most extraordinary example of scientific fraud in the postwar period."
Click to expand...
I couldn't have said it better myself. As I've posted here before, scientific papers with evidence that contradicts the "church's" hard line stance on man being the sole culprit for GW are not being published and in many cases are not even being granted peer review.

And before you guys break out the flame throwers... my argument against this man-made global warming kick the scientific community has been on for the last 20 years has nothing to do with any spcific scientific study. It has to do with the total absense of debate on the subject despite the lack of hard, undisputed evidence to support such conclusions.

In short, it's bad science. The suppression of contratrian evidence and viewpoints is not good science.

Good for these guys for coming together to share and exchange ideas. I'm glad to see people coming out of the closet (as it were) on this issue.
Click to expand...

They are hyping a book and are part of a group founded by a former mining executive. Just what idiots are they pandering to?
 
If the Earth gets screwed up it is because God wants it that way... nothing is done without his blessing. Amen
 
Originally posted by: ericlp
I don't believe a true scientist would be stupid enough not to see all the mounting evidence of the effects man is having on global warming...

Stay the course.... Drum beat.... Well, maybe some christian science monitor member might have those views but you can't mix religion and science...

No Heaven No Hell - Just Science!
Click to expand...
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." --Albert Einstein

If you aren't taking part in the data collection process or critically reviewing the journal articles from which the data originate, then you are taking the scientists' word on faith. Since it doesn't appear we have any climatologists or environmental scientists in this forum, I doubt anyone here is qualified to make a non-faith-based argument for or against global warming. Hell, I got a masters degree in environmental engineering and I'm not even close to in a position to make any definitive statements on this subject. My faith is not easily awarded on any front and I am eternally skeptical of any data that I didn't personally collect (even some that I did 😛). The knowledge that you need to really understand anything of significance is simply out of the grasp of the lay person and even most scientists. You can't simply watch a movie by Al Gore and become an expert on the subject, even if the movie was truth instead of pure propaganda (most of his 'documentary' falls into the latter category... just ask if you want some specific examples). It takes years of dedicated study to understand the methodologies used to extrapolate the temperature/CO2 distributions from ages past, their shortcomings, scope of applicability, and so on.

I know it's easier to take what's on the news and say 'oh, it must be true - that guy wearing a lab coat said it was!', but sometimes it's best to take note of what he says, take note of the controversy, and wonder if what he says could be true and if it's true, what you could do to make it better. I am very skeptical of the extent of man-made climate change, at least as far as average temperatures go. I'm even more skeptical that CO2 is the primary contributor to this temperature change (indeed, I'm almost certain that it's not). However, I take what I do know for certain, what I can gather from discussing the issue with people who know more about it than I do, and what I think based on my best judgments, and adjust my lifestyle accordingly. I ride the train or walk to and from work instead of driving. I take the train to conferences instead of flying or driving. It's not much, and maybe it won't have any impact at all, but it's a case where I'd rather be safe than sorry. If lowering CO2 (or, probably more importantly, H2O) outputs will help regulate the environment and keep those wretched blue-staters from being flooded out of house and home, then I'll do my part. Even if it doesn't do anything for the environment, it's helping my bottom line and making gas cheaper for those who must drive everywhere. In the end, this is all the average Joe can do - change his lifestyle a little bit and hope to help pinch the perceived problem, even if it is 'just in case all of this mumbo-jumbo turns out to be true.'
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
How did I know that my comments in the OP would fly right over some people's heads? Thanks for proving my point guys. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that it was just too intellectual for the dumb folks here, I think the problem is that it's a silly point. Rather than raising any scientific argument, you're arguing against the vast majority of serious scientists by suggesting that that fact that most of them agree is suspicious. In other words, your argument is that ALL scientific debate must have more than one equally valid viewpoint, and any ABSENCE of that second viewpoint must be due to some sort of grand conspiracy theory among members of the scientific community. By your logic, the fact that the earth rotates around the sun must be suspect since virtually all scientists agree on that point.

Just because you are able to rationalize ignoring the evidence does not make it cease to exist. Yes, there is little hard and fast certainty of the type non-science folks always seem to expect from science, but the evidence is pretty damning...which might better explain why the only people you hear making arguments against the scientific community tend to be fiction authors like Michael Crichton. Clearly we need to examine what's going on a little deeper, but there seems little question that we are artificially changing the environment. What we really need to do is for the science folks to be allowed to do their research without loudmouths who don't know what they are talking about from turning this into a political football. And yes, I'm talking about you. If you really understood the debate, you might realize that no one is making the argument that we are the SOLE cause of global climate change.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for reasoned, informed, scientific debate. I just don't happen to think we're going to get a lot of it from people like you or those jokers in Australia. Nobody is keeping serious scientists with serious objections shut out, those people simply don't exist.
Click to expand...

Again... you've missed my point. I'm not bemoaning the absense of a counter viewpoint. I'm talking about the suppression of it. Global Warming advocates love to stand up and say that there is no dissenting evidence. And now you've thrown in the conspiracy theory card.

My problem with the entire debate is that there is no debate. If you don't believe, you're a kook. If you have a scientific study that doesn't jive with the common doctrine, nobody wants to hear it. (As you so eloquently expressed) What's more, try to get a grant if your evidence doesn't toe the party line.

To stand there and say that there are no legitimate dissenters to the accepted dogma or that there are no legitimate scientists who have legitimate evidence that contradicts the common dogma... Well, first that's just wrong. And second, that's the problem. I'm not saying that you have to take into account the opinions of every kook out there, but there are pleanty of rational and legitimate scientists who have legitimate science that needs to be presented as part of the (non)debate that we are in the middle of.

To include me in this debate is ludicrous. I'm not the one trying to be heard. I want the guys who are working on global climate models that don't fit the conventional model to be heard. I'm tired of one side suppressing the other. And in this case that is exactly what is happening. It's the tyranny of the majority. And in case you haven't taken note of recent history, the majority isn't always right. 😉

 
It must be a fad to be intellectually and morally bankrupt on the extreme Conservative right. I see it here with the so-called conservatives. From Iraq to poor governance to global warming, these people will disbelieve common sense, mounting evidence, and their own eyes and ears in order to be a part of George W. Bush's Comedy of Fools. I just don't get it. What does it take to get these people to see things for what they are? Do these people actually enjoy their minority status? Do they disagree with others simply for the sake of disagreeing or do they have secret evidence that reality is not at all what it seems? Am I missing something here?
 
Originally posted by: Narmer
It must be a fad to be intellectually and morally bankrupt on the extreme Conservative right. I see it here with the so-called conservatives. From Iraq to poor governance to global warming, these people will disbelieve common sense, mounting evidence, and their own eyes and ears in order to be a part of George W. Bush's Comedy of Fools. I just don't get it. What does it take to get these people to see things for what they are? Do these people actually enjoy their minority status? Do they disagree with others simply for the sake of disagreeing or do they have secret evidence that reality is not at all what it seems? Am I missing something here?
Click to expand...

So you're ok with accepting scientific theory that ignores and supresses any contrarian evidence?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top