Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Global warming or climate change has become so politicizied I don't know how anyone can take any scientific study seriously anymore.
Any study coming out now,I simply do not look at seriously.
The joke is on us.
Okay, let's take what you say at face value.
Can you list the studies on global warming that you have actually read? I don't mean news accounts, I mean the actual published studies.
For any scientific study that you disbelieve, can you point to a published, peer-reviewed study the demonstrates its unreliability?
If not, what is your basis for claiming that these scientific studies are politicized?
Skepticism is a necessary part of the discovery process.
Scientists who attack skepticism and embrace political agenda are no longer credible.
This is true. The problem that many of us have with global warming "skeptics" is that their views are expressed purely as political contempt. Their shrieking voices are a vain attempt to drown out the mountains of evidence that can be found piling up on a daily basis if you look at websites such as ScienceDaily.com
Skepticism is, as you say, essential to any scientific claim. Skepticism can have the following effects: to weaken, strengthen or modify existing claims, or to introduce alternative hypotheses.
Thus far, in the science of global warming studies, skepticism has failed to weaken the theory or to propose viable alternative hypotheses. However, that doesn't mean that the debate is settled. It only points to the current status of things, that there's still a consensus among scientists studying the phenomenon that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and soot are leading to a warming of the planet that is accelerating due to positive feedback loops that increase warming without our further help.
But that's the consensus of scientists, not of the American public. Sadly, I don't trust the American public to calculate the cube root of 27, let alone to articulate the basis for undermining a complex theory such as AGW. Hence, the skepticism in popular culture and mass media boils down to silly talking points that are irrelevant to the science itself.
LONDON (March 5) -- Climate scientists have hit back at skeptics with the publication of a new paper that says the case for man-made global warming is now "stronger than ever."
An international team of scientists led by Britain's Met Office -- the country's national weather service -- has spent the past year reviewing 110 studies published since 2007 that tracked changes in the earth's climate. Their paper, published in the journal Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, concluded that the possibility the world is warming because of natural variations in climate (such as increased volcanic or solar activity) is "increasingly remote." Instead, they firmly pin the blame on man's burning of fossil fuels.
The reason this holds no merit for me (a published scientist) is that they 'reviewed papers.' Big whoopadeedo. I can review studies (no one says if they are good or bad or biased studies) and interpret them however I want to.
I want someone to do an independent, unbiased, blinded actual study on this. Oh, wait. They can't. All they can do is make models and try to extrapolate. Great science.
This is true. The problem that many of us have with global warming "skeptics" is that their views are expressed purely as political contempt. Their shrieking voices are a vain attempt to drown out the mountains of evidence that can be found piling up on a daily basis if you look at websites such as ScienceDaily.com
Skepticism is, as you say, essential to any scientific claim. Skepticism can have the following effects: to weaken, strengthen or modify existing claims, or to introduce alternative hypotheses.
Thus far, in the science of global warming studies, skepticism has failed to weaken the theory or to propose viable alternative hypotheses. However, that doesn't mean that the debate is settled. It only points to the current status of things, that there's still a consensus among scientists studying the phenomenon that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and soot are leading to a warming of the planet that is accelerating due to positive feedback loops that increase warming without our further help.
But that's the consensus of scientists, not of the American public. Sadly, I don't trust the American public to calculate the cube root of 27, let alone to articulate the basis for undermining a complex theory such as AGW. Hence, the skepticism in popular culture and mass media boils down to silly talking points that are irrelevant to the science itself.
There is too much money riding on this scam for these con men to give it up. They will keep at it as long as they have the usual fools out there sucking it up like the sheep they are.
,
This is true. The problem that many of us have with global warming "skeptics" is that their views are expressed purely as political contempt. Their shrieking voices are a vain attempt to drown out the mountains of evidence that can be found piling up on a daily basis if you look at websites such as ScienceDaily.com
Skepticism is, as you say, essential to any scientific claim. Skepticism can have the following effects: to weaken, strengthen or modify existing claims, or to introduce alternative hypotheses.
Thus far, in the science of global warming studies, skepticism has failed to weaken the theory or to propose viable alternative hypotheses. However, that doesn't mean that the debate is settled. It only points to the current status of things, that there's still a consensus among scientists studying the phenomenon that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and soot are leading to a warming of the planet that is accelerating due to positive feedback loops that increase warming without our further help.
But that's the consensus of scientists, not of the American public. Sadly, I don't trust the American public to calculate the cube root of 27, let alone to articulate the basis for undermining a complex theory such as AGW. Hence, the skepticism in popular culture and mass media boils down to silly talking points that are irrelevant to the science itself.
Simply untrue. That is, unless you have disregarded the issues with the CRU emails, the AR4 being found to rely on research that has not been reviewed or validated, numerous retractions of research after this revelation, the behavior of the scientists and organizations concerning research which found discrepancies in their work (result of FOI request scandal), and the actions and behavior of scientists and organizations concerning the peer review process itself as it concerned research that conflicted with the AGW hypothesis.
Are you saying that the actions of people like Phill Jones, Ben Santer, Gavin Schmidt, Micheal Mann, and the IPCC in general are proper conduct as it concerned questions with the supportive research?
Do you also think the increased hostility to anyone who asked questions or provided conflicting research by labeling them "deniers" and attempting to constantly imply their work is an act of political influence by oil companies to be proper discourse in climate science?
Because this has been the general trend of this field and the exact behavior of many organizations and leading scientists of the AGW position.
I can't help but see your response as one that is specifically avoiding the issues currently happening in the field in order to push support for a position that was never held by the face of the field in the past. To suggest such is disingenuous and falls into the realms of political spin.
I have studied the politics of the issue (as well as the science) and have concluded the resistance of the right wing and their corporate sponsors is a strong desire to avoid responsibility for something their actions have done. Avoiding responsibility for their own actions is the basis of their political and economic activities.
Mankind’s actions both heat (CO2 concentration) and cool (jet condensation clouds) the atmosphere. This is observed fact. The problem is the economic domination by the fossil fuels industry is severely threatened by using other sources of electrical energy and transportation fuels. They have hired the best propagandists on the planet to hide their responsibility for any damage done by their actions. Lying has never been a problem for business so they have no qualms about their campaign to discredit their opposition. Legitimate science simply has very little chance against the master liars.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
