Quote:
Originally Posted by fugazied
I have a masters degree and a basic knowledge of science, that is all that is required to sign the 'The Global Warming Petition Project'. I am not a specialist in the field of climatology yet I could both of those petitions. You need to look at the numbers of publishing climatologists who are actively researching the climate change. Anything else is just willful ignorance.
I am sorry, I don't CARE what a Veterinarian, Medical doctors, weatherman, mechanical engineer says about climate change. I want to hear publishing climatologists who research the subject.
It is just madness to even consider those petitions as proof of a massive number of climate change 'scientists' disagreeing with the premise of global warming. Look at the real peer reviewed published science for a change, the stuff climatologists publish, not the Fox news weatherman's blog.
|
You don't need to be a climatologist to know that the methodology underlying the claims of AGW is corrupt. You don't even have to be a scientist to know that in this particular case.
The methodology is corrupt because (1) the historical data on which AGW claims are based has disappeared, (2) the communications which have been leaked show an effort to conform current data to fit the theory, rather than the other way around, and (3) the peer review process appears to have been compromised.
The essence of science, according to Karl Popper, is not proof, but disproof. That is, a hypothesis, such as AWG, is not a scientific hypothesis unless the proponent can articulate an experiment which could, if successful, disprove the hypothesis. In order for the scientific process to work, the data supporting a scientific conclusion must be made available to everyone and must be capable of being tested and validated.
The sad fact of the matter is that the scientists who should have been attentive to insuring that their data was made available to everyone have carelessly (at best) failed to do so. And because of that, there is no way for other scientists to test their AGW hypothesis. Everyone is just supposed to take the conclusions on faith, and faith has nothing to do with science.
One of the non-scientific problems concerning AGW is that some people seem to have a need to believe in an Apocalypse. And there are enough of them that when they work up a full head of steam, they can drag a lot of other people along with them. The AGW Apocalypse is leading us to take steps that will cripple our economy and quite possibly lower our standard of living.
So, in the interests of giving the Apocalyptic thinkers something more worthy of their concern, let me offer the Yellowstone Supervolcano. Yes, my friends, there really is a gigantic volcano under Yellowstone National Park, and it could blow up at any time with catastrophic effects, including a global winter that would dwarf the claimed effects of AGW. I'm not making this up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_Caldera
"The upward movement of the Yellowstone caldera floor—almost 3 inches (7 centimeters) each year for the past three years—is more than three times greater than ever observed since such measurements began in 1923.[16] From mid-Summer 2004 through mid-Summer 2008, the land surface within the caldera has moved upwards, as much as 8 inches at the White Lake GPS station.[17]"
The Geologic Survey says that there's no immediate threat in "the foreseable future," but admits that they can't predict the next eruption. There will, however, be such an eruption, just as there will at some point be earthquakes along the San Andreas Fault. Obviously what we need here is a massive federal government intervention to move everyone located in the Midwest, from the Rockies to the Mississippi, from Canada to the Rio Grande, out of the zone of danger. We probably ought to move people out of California, too, except that...well...who would take them?
This is much more important than AWG. You can adjust to a change in the climate. It's more difficult to adjust to a volcano erupting under your feet.