• 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.

Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears

IGBT

Lifer
Text

..the willing accomplices in what passes for news dodged this story and numerous others as well. Balance is not their prerogative.. when agenda comes first with pick and choose science to support the fraud.


WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/



"We have had a Greenhouse Theory with no evidence to support it-except a moderate warming turned into a scare by computer models whose results have never been verified with real-world events," said co-author Singer. "On the other hand, we have compelling evidence of a real-world climate cycle averaging 1470 years (plus or minus 500) running through the last million years of history. The climate cycle has above all been moderate, and the trees, bears, birds, and humans have quietly adapted."
"Two thousand years of published human histories say that the warm periods were good for people," says Avery. "It was the harsh, unstable Dark Ages and Little Ice Age that brought bigger storms, untimely frost, widespread famine and plagues of disease." "There may have been a consensus of guesses among climate model-builders," says Singer. "However, the models only reflect the warming, not its cause." He noted that about 70 percent of the earth's post-1850 warming came before 1940, and thus was probably not caused by human-emitted greenhouse gases. The net post-1940 warming totals only a tiny 0.2 degrees C.


Singer emphasized, "Humans have known since the invention of the telescope that the earth's climate variations were linked to the sunspot cycle, but we had not understood how. Recent experiments have demonstrated that more or fewer cosmic rays hitting the earth create more or fewer of the low, cooling clouds that deflect solar heat back into space-amplifying small variations in the intensity of the sun.
Avery and Singer noted that there are hundreds of additional peer-reviewed studies that have found cycle evidence, and that they will publish additional researchers' names and studies. They also noted that their book was funded by Wallace O. Sellers, a Hudson board member, without any corporate contributions.

 
(grabs cancer causing buttery flavored microwave popcorn and pulls up a seat)

Starts counting down ...waiting for the inevitable name calling and "climate experts" to chime in.

Seriously,

Every time a new study comes out, regardless of the theory and evidence supporting the theory, this forum proclaims it as bunk. You can't have a rational discussion on this one any more than you can speak even the name of the CIC of the U.S. Armed Forces without name calling and labeling.

GW "is"..."isn't" or a is combination of both. Climate change theory is in it's infancy, and like all emerging sciences, is going through growing pains. My take is that every five or so years, changes in technology allow for a clearer picture. That means that five years from now we may get a clearer picture, and hopefully the picture is convincing enough to agree to do something other than to scream and name call. ntelligent discussion of solutions is a start. I see little on these forums of reasonable solutions.

My .02 cents is likely not useful for setting up solutions for GW, because most people would'nt take personal responsibility over profit.
 
HaHa. GOTCHA! Where does the article get the story from? PRNewswire-USNewswire. It tooks some searching but here is who they are:

U.S. Newswire
Transmits public policy press releases for the White House, government agencies, Congress, interest groups, and the political parties
http://www.prnewswire.com/

So its a POLITICAL news organization!

And here is the tagline ON THE TOP OF THEIR WEBPAGE:

"WE TELL YOUR STORY TO THE WORLD."

AND from their website:
Delivering the most policy, issue and advocacy news.

AND from their website:

Add your news to the world's most comprehensive distribution network, view our services or learn more in our PR Toolkit.

And from their website:
A PR newswire company. ( a public relations company!)

AND from their website:
Established in 1954, PR Newswire has offices in 11 countries and routinely sends its customers' news to outlets in 135 countries and in 40 languages

So basically you PAY them to publish your POLITICAL views.

HaHa.
I claim major pwnage.

And I submit that this PROVES the people trying to discredit global warming scientists will stop at no deception.
 
Originally posted by: techs
HaHa. GOTCHA! Where does the article get the story from? PRNewswire-USNewswire. It tooks some searching but here is who they are:

U.S. Newswire
Transmits public policy press releases for the White House, government agencies, Congress, interest groups, and the political parties
http://www.prnewswire.com/

So its a POLITICAL news organization!

And here is the tagline ON THE TOP OF THEIR WEBPAGE:

"WE TELL YOUR STORY TO THE WORLD."

AND from their website:
Delivering the most policy, issue and advocacy news.

AND from their website:

Add your news to the world's most comprehensive distribution network, view our services or learn more in our PR Toolkit.

And from their website:
A PR newswire company. ( a public relations company!)

AND from their website:
Established in 1954, PR Newswire has offices in 11 countries and routinely sends its customers' news to outlets in 135 countries and in 40 languages

So basically you PAY them to publish your POLITICAL views.

HaHa.
I claim major pwnage.

And I submit that this PROVES the people trying to discredit global warming scientists will stop at no deception.
Actually you are wrong about it being a political organization, it's commercial. They don't care about people's agenda. The OP was quoting a press release that is announcing to the world that a new book has been published.

 
I am glad people are wasting so much time, energy, and brain power on finding out everything there is to know about global warming...

except what TO DO about it.
 
Originally posted by: Rastus
Originally posted by: techs
HaHa. GOTCHA! Where does the article get the story from? PRNewswire-USNewswire. It tooks some searching but here is who they are:

U.S. Newswire
Transmits public policy press releases for the White House, government agencies, Congress, interest groups, and the political parties
http://www.prnewswire.com/

So its a POLITICAL news organization!

And here is the tagline ON THE TOP OF THEIR WEBPAGE:

"WE TELL YOUR STORY TO THE WORLD."

AND from their website:
Delivering the most policy, issue and advocacy news.

AND from their website:

Add your news to the world's most comprehensive distribution network, view our services or learn more in our PR Toolkit.

And from their website:
A PR newswire company. ( a public relations company!)

AND from their website:
Established in 1954, PR Newswire has offices in 11 countries and routinely sends its customers' news to outlets in 135 countries and in 40 languages

So basically you PAY them to publish your POLITICAL views.

HaHa.
I claim major pwnage.

And I submit that this PROVES the people trying to discredit global warming scientists will stop at no deception.
Actually you are wrong about it being a political organization, it's commercial. They don't care about people's agenda. The OP was quoting a press release that is announcing to the world that a new book has been published.

No, like any good propaganda you have to read it carefully. This is about a guy, Dennis Avery, of a right wing think tank started by Herbert Kahn (wiki " Kahn came to be regarded by some as a monster" " None of the conventional issues bothered him. Fallout, for example, would simply be another one of life's many unpleasantries and inconveniences") who says he analyzed HIS OWN BOOK (Unstoppable Global Warming) and these are his conclusions.
Hmmm. He analyzed his own book.
The "press release" is announcing how he discovered these facts in his OWN book.
AND then he paid an organization that dissemenates paid "news" for political organizations.
enuff said.

 
Two thousand years of published human histories say that the warm periods were good for people
I have been saying this for a while. It's ridiculous to think that the current climate is PERFECT, so either a cooling would be overall good or a warming would be overall good. I imagine that, overall, the planet would benefit from more warmth than cooling. People harp, brainlessly and endlessly on only the negatives, and this is all totally irrespective of how much influence we even have on the warming trend anyway.
 
The first thing to note is that the subtitle is incorrect, global warming is no longer just about CO2 anymore. And to a large extent, many of the detractors of global warming, simply set up a straw man of more simplistic global warming science and then proceed to knock the straw man down. Worse yet, various oil companies and even GWB&co. are motivated into funding totally biased science motivated by money and politics. In such a poisonous and counterfeit an environment, it would be great for the holy grail of true science to rise up and smite the phony, the problem is that having a really good understanding of global warming is decades or more away. And having anything really close to a perfect understanding of GW is something we will never achieve because its such a multi-dimensional problem.

In the end most people are stuck with two problems.

1. How to tell what amounts to the good study from the study that is chock full of science spin.

2. And the real biggie-----BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW NOW, do we reduce our output of greenhouse gases or adopt the what we worry approach?
 
:cookie: for the OP and all other eco-terrorists. These threads are getting very, very boring especially when they are just regurged tripe from other right winger anti GW chain emails. The OP needs an original idea perhaps.

EDIT: and Bow is correct, 100% R
 
Originally posted by: maluckey
(grabs cancer causing buttery flavored microwave popcorn and pulls up a seat)

Starts counting down ...waiting for the inevitable name calling and "climate experts" to chime in.

Seriously,

Every time a new study comes out, regardless of the theory and evidence supporting the theory, this forum proclaims it as bunk. You can't have a rational discussion on this one

You think we should be on oil after 1973?

You like being held hostage to black gold thugs?
 
Originally posted by: IGBT
Text

[ Press release deleted ]
Not only is this a press release for two guys selling a book, it is a REPOST. Given that this is the third time this pseudo-article has been floated, I assume there is either a chain e-mail going around or one of the Free Republic type sites has been ignorantly touting this as a major development.

Please refer to that thread for additional pwnage.
 
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Two thousand years of published human histories say that the warm periods were good for people
I have been saying this for a while. It's ridiculous to think that the current climate is PERFECT, so either a cooling would be overall good or a warming would be overall good. I imagine that, overall, the planet would benefit from more warmth than cooling. People harp, brainlessly and endlessly on only the negatives, and this is all totally irrespective of how much influence we even have on the warming trend anyway.


..true. but the eco-theists are frothing at the mouth over the massive cash flow this fraud will generate once it's institutionalized. Just imagine all the white coat/clip board bureaucrat do nothing jobs.. a fraud like this will fund. You'll have massive org.s in each state similar to DMV running around certifying your co2 emission's. And like your vehicles you'll have to register/recert every year.

 
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: IGBT
Text

[ Press release deleted ]
Not only is this a press release for two guys selling a book, it is a REPOST. Given that this is the third time this pseudo-article has been floated, I assume there is either a chain e-mail going around or one of the Free Republic type sites has been ignorantly touting this as a major development.

Please refer to that thread for additional pwnage.

:thumbsup:

 
Originally posted by: IGBT
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Two thousand years of published human histories say that the warm periods were good for people
I have been saying this for a while. It's ridiculous to think that the current climate is PERFECT, so either a cooling would be overall good or a warming would be overall good. I imagine that, overall, the planet would benefit from more warmth than cooling. People harp, brainlessly and endlessly on only the negatives, and this is all totally irrespective of how much influence we even have on the warming trend anyway.


..true. but the eco-theists are frothing at the mouth over the massive cash flow this fraud will generate once it's institutionalized. Just imagine all the white coat/clip board bureaucrat do nothing jobs.. a fraud like this will fund. You'll have massive org.s in each state similar to DMV running around certifying your co2 emission's. And like your vehicles you'll have to register/recert every year.

Heh, and our current energy system doesn't have that? Whatever we do, energy is a HUGE business, people are going to try to make as much money off of it as they can...that's a stupid reason to do or not do something.

In any case, that "eco-theist" label is a little misplaced, as the VAST majority of climate scientists support the idea that human beings are significantly contributing to climate change. If there is any position that requires faith, it's the idea that all these professional scientists are wrong.
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: IGBT
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Two thousand years of published human histories say that the warm periods were good for people
I have been saying this for a while. It's ridiculous to think that the current climate is PERFECT, so either a cooling would be overall good or a warming would be overall good. I imagine that, overall, the planet would benefit from more warmth than cooling. People harp, brainlessly and endlessly on only the negatives, and this is all totally irrespective of how much influence we even have on the warming trend anyway.


..true. but the eco-theists are frothing at the mouth over the massive cash flow this fraud will generate once it's institutionalized. Just imagine all the white coat/clip board bureaucrat do nothing jobs.. a fraud like this will fund. You'll have massive org.s in each state similar to DMV running around certifying your co2 emission's. And like your vehicles you'll have to register/recert every year.

Heh, and our current energy system doesn't have that? Whatever we do, energy is a HUGE business, people are going to try to make as much money off of it as they can...that's a stupid reason to do or not do something.

In any case, that "eco-theist" label is a little misplaced, as the VAST majority of climate scientists support the idea that human beings are significantly contributing to climate change. If there is any position that requires faith, it's the idea that all these professional scientists are wrong.


...So what are we to make of (in alphabetical order) Dr. Tim Ball at the University of Winnipeg, Dr. Robert Balling at Arizona State University, Dr. Bob Carter at James Cook University in Australia, Dr. Randall Cerveny at Arizona State University, Dr. John Christy at the University of Alabama, Dr. Robert Davis at the University of Virginia, Dr. Christopher Essex at the University of Western Ontario, Dr. Oliver Frauenfeld at the University of Colorado, Dr. Wibjörn Karlèn at Stockholm University, and Dr. Christopher Landsea at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)?

And what about Dr. David Legates at the University of Delaware, Dr. Henry Linden at IIT, Dr. Richard Lindzen at MIT, Dr. Ross McKitrick at the University of Guelph, Dr. Patrick Michaels at the University of Virginia, Dr. Dick Morgan at the University of Exeter, Dr. Tim Peterson at Carleton University, Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. at the University of Colorado, Dr. Eric Posmentier at Dartmouth College, Dr. Willie Soon at Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Dr. Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama, and Dr. Boris Winterhalter at the University of Helsinki? All are respected authorities on climatology, working at respected universities, who appear regularly in peer-reviewed science journals ... and they all dispute Gore?s alarmist claims.


 
Originally posted by: umbrella39
:cookie: for the OP and all other eco-terrorists. These threads are getting very, very boring especially when they are just regurged tripe from other right winger anti GW chain emails. The OP needs an original idea perhaps.

EDIT: and Bow is correct, 100% R

Eco-terrorists? :roll:

:cookie: Here's one for you too, Bush wannabe.
 
Originally posted by: IGBT
...So what are we to make of (in alphabetical order) Dr. Tim Ball at the University of Winnipeg, Dr. Robert Balling at Arizona State University, Dr. Bob Carter at James Cook University in Australia, Dr. Randall Cerveny at Arizona State University, Dr. John Christy at the University of Alabama, Dr. Robert Davis at the University of Virginia, Dr. Christopher Essex at the University of Western Ontario, Dr. Oliver Frauenfeld at the University of Colorado, Dr. Wibjörn Karlèn at Stockholm University, and Dr. Christopher Landsea at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)?

And what about Dr. David Legates at the University of Delaware, Dr. Henry Linden at IIT, Dr. Richard Lindzen at MIT, Dr. Ross McKitrick at the University of Guelph, Dr. Patrick Michaels at the University of Virginia, Dr. Dick Morgan at the University of Exeter, Dr. Tim Peterson at Carleton University, Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. at the University of Colorado, Dr. Eric Posmentier at Dartmouth College, Dr. Willie Soon at Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Dr. Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama, and Dr. Boris Winterhalter at the University of Helsinki?< All are respected authorities on climatology, working at respected universities, who appear regularly in peer-reviewed science journals ... and they all dispute Gore?s alarmist claims.
According to whom are they "respected authorities on climatology [who] all dispute Gore's alarmist [sic] claims?" Can you prove this with objective, credible sources, or did you get that from another press release?


(PS. This is still a REPOST)

 
Originally posted by: IGBT
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: IGBT
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Two thousand years of published human histories say that the warm periods were good for people
I have been saying this for a while. It's ridiculous to think that the current climate is PERFECT, so either a cooling would be overall good or a warming would be overall good. I imagine that, overall, the planet would benefit from more warmth than cooling. People harp, brainlessly and endlessly on only the negatives, and this is all totally irrespective of how much influence we even have on the warming trend anyway.


..true. but the eco-theists are frothing at the mouth over the massive cash flow this fraud will generate once it's institutionalized. Just imagine all the white coat/clip board bureaucrat do nothing jobs.. a fraud like this will fund. You'll have massive org.s in each state similar to DMV running around certifying your co2 emission's. And like your vehicles you'll have to register/recert every year.

Heh, and our current energy system doesn't have that? Whatever we do, energy is a HUGE business, people are going to try to make as much money off of it as they can...that's a stupid reason to do or not do something.

In any case, that "eco-theist" label is a little misplaced, as the VAST majority of climate scientists support the idea that human beings are significantly contributing to climate change. If there is any position that requires faith, it's the idea that all these professional scientists are wrong.


...So what are we to make of (in alphabetical order) Dr. Tim Ball at the University of Winnipeg, Dr. Robert Balling at Arizona State University, Dr. Bob Carter at James Cook University in Australia, Dr. Randall Cerveny at Arizona State University, Dr. John Christy at the University of Alabama, Dr. Robert Davis at the University of Virginia, Dr. Christopher Essex at the University of Western Ontario, Dr. Oliver Frauenfeld at the University of Colorado, Dr. Wibjörn Karlèn at Stockholm University, and Dr. Christopher Landsea at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)?

And what about Dr. David Legates at the University of Delaware, Dr. Henry Linden at IIT, Dr. Richard Lindzen at MIT, Dr. Ross McKitrick at the University of Guelph, Dr. Patrick Michaels at the University of Virginia, Dr. Dick Morgan at the University of Exeter, Dr. Tim Peterson at Carleton University, Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. at the University of Colorado, Dr. Eric Posmentier at Dartmouth College, Dr. Willie Soon at Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Dr. Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama, and Dr. Boris Winterhalter at the University of Helsinki?< All are respected authorities on climatology, working at respected universities, who appear regularly in peer-reviewed science journals ... and they all dispute Gore?s alarmist claims.

Assuming your claim that they are "respected authorities on climatology", I don't see why we have to make anything of it. Very few scientific topics achieve the kind of universal consensus you seem to expect, it wouldn't be unusual to see a few dissenters on almost any topic. But they are in a very small minority among climate scientists, which suggests to me that it's MORE likely that the other side is right.
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: IGBT
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: IGBT
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Two thousand years of published human histories say that the warm periods were good for people
I have been saying this for a while. It's ridiculous to think that the current climate is PERFECT, so either a cooling would be overall good or a warming would be overall good. I imagine that, overall, the planet would benefit from more warmth than cooling. People harp, brainlessly and endlessly on only the negatives, and this is all totally irrespective of how much influence we even have on the warming trend anyway.


..true. but the eco-theists are frothing at the mouth over the massive cash flow this fraud will generate once it's institutionalized. Just imagine all the white coat/clip board bureaucrat do nothing jobs.. a fraud like this will fund. You'll have massive org.s in each state similar to DMV running around certifying your co2 emission's. And like your vehicles you'll have to register/recert every year.

Heh, and our current energy system doesn't have that? Whatever we do, energy is a HUGE business, people are going to try to make as much money off of it as they can...that's a stupid reason to do or not do something.

In any case, that "eco-theist" label is a little misplaced, as the VAST majority of climate scientists support the idea that human beings are significantly contributing to climate change. If there is any position that requires faith, it's the idea that all these professional scientists are wrong.


...So what are we to make of (in alphabetical order) Dr. Tim Ball at the University of Winnipeg, Dr. Robert Balling at Arizona State University, Dr. Bob Carter at James Cook University in Australia, Dr. Randall Cerveny at Arizona State University, Dr. John Christy at the University of Alabama, Dr. Robert Davis at the University of Virginia, Dr. Christopher Essex at the University of Western Ontario, Dr. Oliver Frauenfeld at the University of Colorado, Dr. Wibjörn Karlèn at Stockholm University, and Dr. Christopher Landsea at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)?

And what about Dr. David Legates at the University of Delaware, Dr. Henry Linden at IIT, Dr. Richard Lindzen at MIT, Dr. Ross McKitrick at the University of Guelph, Dr. Patrick Michaels at the University of Virginia, Dr. Dick Morgan at the University of Exeter, Dr. Tim Peterson at Carleton University, Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. at the University of Colorado, Dr. Eric Posmentier at Dartmouth College, Dr. Willie Soon at Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Dr. Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama, and Dr. Boris Winterhalter at the University of Helsinki?<< All are respected authorities on climatology, working at respected universities, who appear regularly in peer-reviewed science journals ... and they all dispute Gore?s alarmist claims.

Assuming your claim that they are "respected authorities on climatology", I don't see why we have to make anything of it. Very few scientific topics achieve the kind of universal consensus you seem to expect, it wouldn't be unusual to see a few dissenters on almost any topic. But they are in a very small minority among climate scientists, which suggests to me that it's MORE likely that the other side is right.

..500 years ago the vast majority of scientists concluded thru consensus the world was flat. The willing accomplices aren't reporting so called "dissenters". Thus the lop side appearance. Wouldn't want to upset/undermine the agenda.

 
Originally posted by: IGBT
..500 years ago the vast majority of scientists concluded thru consensus the world was flat. The willing accomplices aren't reporting so called "dissenters". Thus the lop side appearance. Wouldn't want to upset/undermine the agenda.

Your reasoning is just flat out terrible. For every Galileo or Copernicus there are 10,000 Alex Chiu's. Maybe the media is just only reporting the people who say wearing magical magnet rings DON'T make you immortal.

Maybe the media reports it this way because over and over and over again it has been shown (in this forum no less, probably to you even) that the vast majority of data points to man caused global warming as being very likely.

I'm sure you're right though and there's simply a vast global conspiracy in order to make money selling solar panels or something.
 
Originally posted by: IGBT
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: IGBT
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: IGBT
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Two thousand years of published human histories say that the warm periods were good for people
I have been saying this for a while. It's ridiculous to think that the current climate is PERFECT, so either a cooling would be overall good or a warming would be overall good. I imagine that, overall, the planet would benefit from more warmth than cooling. People harp, brainlessly and endlessly on only the negatives, and this is all totally irrespective of how much influence we even have on the warming trend anyway.


..true. but the eco-theists are frothing at the mouth over the massive cash flow this fraud will generate once it's institutionalized. Just imagine all the white coat/clip board bureaucrat do nothing jobs.. a fraud like this will fund. You'll have massive org.s in each state similar to DMV running around certifying your co2 emission's. And like your vehicles you'll have to register/recert every year.

Heh, and our current energy system doesn't have that? Whatever we do, energy is a HUGE business, people are going to try to make as much money off of it as they can...that's a stupid reason to do or not do something.

In any case, that "eco-theist" label is a little misplaced, as the VAST majority of climate scientists support the idea that human beings are significantly contributing to climate change. If there is any position that requires faith, it's the idea that all these professional scientists are wrong.


...So what are we to make of (in alphabetical order) Dr. Tim Ball at the University of Winnipeg, Dr. Robert Balling at Arizona State University, Dr. Bob Carter at James Cook University in Australia, Dr. Randall Cerveny at Arizona State University, Dr. John Christy at the University of Alabama, Dr. Robert Davis at the University of Virginia, Dr. Christopher Essex at the University of Western Ontario, Dr. Oliver Frauenfeld at the University of Colorado, Dr. Wibjörn Karlèn at Stockholm University, and Dr. Christopher Landsea at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)?

And what about Dr. David Legates at the University of Delaware, Dr. Henry Linden at IIT, Dr. Richard Lindzen at MIT, Dr. Ross McKitrick at the University of Guelph, Dr. Patrick Michaels at the University of Virginia, Dr. Dick Morgan at the University of Exeter, Dr. Tim Peterson at Carleton University, Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. at the University of Colorado, Dr. Eric Posmentier at Dartmouth College, Dr. Willie Soon at Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Dr. Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama, and Dr. Boris Winterhalter at the University of Helsinki?<<<< All are respected authorities on climatology, working at respected universities, who appear regularly in peer-reviewed science journals ... and they all dispute Gore?s alarmist claims.

Assuming your claim that they are "respected authorities on climatology", I don't see why we have to make anything of it. Very few scientific topics achieve the kind of universal consensus you seem to expect, it wouldn't be unusual to see a few dissenters on almost any topic. But they are in a very small minority among climate scientists, which suggests to me that it's MORE likely that the other side is right.

..500 years ago the vast majority of scientists concluded thru consensus the world was flat. The willing accomplices aren't reporting so called "dissenters". Thus the lop side appearance. Wouldn't want to upset/undermine the agenda.

As the saying goes, they laughed at Galileo, they laughed at Einstein...but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. Every good idea was once only supported by a minority, that does NOT mean that every minority idea becomes a good idea. Most of them aren't in the minority because of some vast conspiracy, most of them are in the minority because they are BAD IDEAS.

In any case, your logic leaves us in kind of an awkward position. Just how SHOULD we arrive at answers to the questions posed by the universe? Or is that the point, we don't WANT answers, we just want enough uncertainty so anything can mean anything we want it to...?

Edit: And if it's foolish to base your decisions off of what the majority of scientists think, isn't it more foolish to base it off of what a MINORITY of scientists say? For all your complaining, you AREN'T just pushing for "further investigation", you are iron clad certain that global warming isn't worth worrying about...just what are you basing that on?
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Assuming your claim that they are "respected authorities on climatology", I don't see why we have to make anything of it. Very few scientific topics achieve the kind of universal consensus you seem to expect, it wouldn't be unusual to see a few dissenters on almost any topic. But they are in a very small minority among climate scientists, which suggests to me that it's MORE likely that the other side is right.

Except these scientists have written papers which claim to show some alarming warming in the earth. What does that do? Governments throw billions of dollars at them to study the problem more.

I'd say the earth was warming too.
 
Last time I checked, a "poll" of scientists means about as much as a warm bucket of spit. Common consensus only means something once a theory has predicted something, and that event can come to pass as predicted. This is not the case for any of the clomatological models thus far. All we have are two sides devoted (religiously) to proving the other wrong. While competition drives scientists to outdo each other which may be a good thing, it accomplishes nothing if other bright minds have not begun to come up with ways to avoid or delay the further pollution of the environment. The more I read on GW, the more I'm convinced that $$$$$$$$$$ are on the line on both sides and common sense has gone by the wayside.

Arguing about which scientist is better or more respected than the other solves zilch, squat, nada. Finding ways to clean where we live...priceless!
 
Back
Top