Global warming or not?

[happy_terd]

Maybe if we are lucky the global warming will get rid of the killer bees and acid rain.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by happy_terd

Maybe if we are lucky the global warming will get rid of the killer bees and acid rain.

That's acid bees and killer rain....

[happy_terd]

How come every ten years there is another scare theme of some sort?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by happy_terd

How come every ten years there is another scare theme of some sort?

Attention span? New set of sponsors? A new crop of scientists trying to get tenure?

[Billjr13]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Attention span? New set of sponsors? A new crop of scientists trying to get tenure?

I thought crop circles were done by a couple guys in a pub?

[kennyc]

In case this slipped by below the radar:

http://blogs.creativeloafing.com/the...tists-cleared/

"Eat it climate change deniers. And while you’re at it, stop reciting the bull shit corporate think tanks and lobbyists feed you through their Lame-Stream media outlets like Faux News. Find the off button on your squawk box, look at evidence as unbiased, humble observers and think for yourselves......" (See link for full story)

[kennyc]

And in case this hasn't been posted recently amongst the bar-b-que banter:

http://logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm


" Climate change critics like Richard Lindzen try to say "There's no consensus on global warming." in the Wall Street Journal, in front of Congress, and many other places. This argument has also been made repeatedly on Fox News.1,2 Other researchers like Dean Dr. Mark H. Thiemens say this "has nothing to do with reality".1,2,3 The following is a list of quotes from scientific organizations, academies, scientists, industry spokesmen, etc supporting the existence of man made climate change and the need to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Many of these quotes reference the IPCC or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which is widely regarded by mainstream scientists as either the "most reliable" or one of the most reliable sources for accurate information on climate change. As you will notice, the evidence against the consensus critics like Lindzen and pundits on Fox News is overwhelming. If you are confused as to whose opinion matters, just pay attention to the peer review science journals and the National Academy of Sciences. For those that don't know, the National Academies are like the Supreme Court of science. The number of climate scientists in the US can be found by examining the members of the American Geophysical Union (AGU). As of November 10, 2006 we know that there is a minimum (no official count of foreign climatologists is available) of 20,000 working climatologists worldwide 1,2. An important fact to remember is that many high profile critics you see in the news do not qualify as climate scientists when these standards are applied. Keep both of these concepts in mind the next time you see a handful of self proclaiming "climate scientists" with dissenting opinions. It is also important to note that Exxon Mobil is funding a $10,000 bounty for climate denialists and skeptics. If only 2% of the 20,000 climatologists were bought out then we'd have 400 deniers (skeptics are convinced by science not money)...."

[Sparrow]

Am I the only person who sees the word denier and automatically thinks of stockings?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Am I the only person who sees the word denier and automatically thinks of stockings?

That's a cru thought....

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Am I the only person who sees the word denier and automatically thinks of stockings?

Probably not, but it's not thought of that way in 'merika.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

And in case this hasn't been posted recently amongst the bar-b-que banter:

http://logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm


" Climate change critics like Richard Lindzen try to say "There's no consensus on global warming." in the Wall Street Journal, in front of Congress, and many other places. This argument has also been made repeatedly on Fox News.1,2 Other researchers like Dean Dr. Mark H. Thiemens say this "has nothing to do with reality".1,2,3 The following is a list of quotes from scientific organizations, academies, scientists, industry spokesmen, etc supporting the existence of man made climate change and the need to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Many of these quotes reference the IPCC or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which is widely regarded by mainstream scientists as either the "most reliable" or one of the most reliable sources for accurate information on climate change. As you will notice, the evidence against the consensus critics like Lindzen and pundits on Fox News is overwhelming. If you are confused as to whose opinion matters, just pay attention to the peer review science journals and the National Academy of Sciences. For those that don't know, the National Academies are like the Supreme Court of science. The number of climate scientists in the US can be found by examining the members of the American Geophysical Union (AGU). As of November 10, 2006 we know that there is a minimum (no official count of foreign climatologists is available) of 20,000 working climatologists worldwide 1,2. An important fact to remember is that many high profile critics you see in the news do not qualify as climate scientists when these standards are applied. Keep both of these concepts in mind the next time you see a handful of self proclaiming "climate scientists" with dissenting opinions. It is also important to note that Exxon Mobil is funding a $10,000 bounty for climate denialists and skeptics. If only 2% of the 20,000 climatologists were bought out then we'd have 400 deniers (skeptics are convinced by science not money)...."

Great link and post, Kenny! Thanks!

[wodin]

Originally Posted by kennyc

And in case this hasn't been posted recently amongst the bar-b-que banter:

http://logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm


" Climate change critics like Richard Lindzen try to say "There's no consensus on global warming." in the Wall Street Journal, in front of Congress, and many other places. This argument has also been made repeatedly on Fox News.1,2 Other researchers like Dean Dr. Mark H. Thiemens say this "has nothing to do with reality".1,2,3 The following is a list of quotes from scientific organizations, academies, scientists, industry spokesmen, etc supporting the existence of man made climate change and the need to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Many of these quotes reference the IPCC or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which is widely regarded by mainstream scientists as either the "most reliable" or one of the most reliable sources for accurate information on climate change. As you will notice, the evidence against the consensus critics like Lindzen and pundits on Fox News is overwhelming. If you are confused as to whose opinion matters, just pay attention to the peer review science journals and the National Academy of Sciences. For those that don't know, the National Academies are like the Supreme Court of science. The number of climate scientists in the US can be found by examining the members of the American Geophysical Union (AGU). As of November 10, 2006 we know that there is a minimum (no official count of foreign climatologists is available) of 20,000 working climatologists worldwide 1,2. An important fact to remember is that many high profile critics you see in the news do not qualify as climate scientists when these standards are applied. Keep both of these concepts in mind the next time you see a handful of self proclaiming "climate scientists" with dissenting opinions. It is also important to note that Exxon Mobil is funding a $10,000 bounty for climate denialists and skeptics. If only 2% of the 20,000 climatologists were bought out then we'd have 400 deniers (skeptics are convinced by science not money)...."

I'm almost old enough to remember that in 1904 the consensus of mainstream physicists was that the duration of the time interval between two events is equal for all observers, and in 1886 space was filled with "luminiferous aether".

An examination of the history of science shows that the consensus of mainstream scientists often has little to do with reality.

[kennyc]

That is the beauty of science Wodin it works. When a better explanation comes along it is added to the canon, replacing any theories it has "bettered."

It has everything to do with reality.

An examination of the history or science shows that it is by far the best tool we have for understanding reality and advancing human civilization.

[wodin]

Originally Posted by kennyc

That is the beauty of science Wodin it works. When a better explanation comes along it is added to the canon, replacing any theories it has "bettered."

It has everything to do with reality.

An examination of the history or science shows that it is by far the best tool we have for understanding reality and advancing human civilization.

You missed the point Kenny, the point is that the consensus of mainstream scientists should always be treated with a healthy skepticism; which the adherents of the new religion of "Man Made Climate Change" often forget.

And that, my friend, is science!

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by wodin

You missed the point Kenny, the point is that the consensus of mainstream scientists should always be treated with a healthy skepticism; which the adherents of the new religion of "Man Made Climate Change" often forget.

And that, my friend, is science!

No YOU miss the point. The scientists working in the field have provided the evidence that supports the point under discussion -- Global Warming is real and it is being caused by human activities. That is the truth.

You seem to be missing the fact that science is comprised of equal parts skepticism and proof. This skepticism and proof as well as independent verification have already been applied to the studies published that are used to form the current consensus.

There are thousands of articles I could point you to to help correct this basic misunderstanding you (and others) seem to have, but I'll point to just one,

Chapter 17 in Carl Sagan's The Demon Haunted World: The Marriage of Skepticism and Wonder to help clear that up for you.