Tal - I think it's interesting too, and I do appreciate and respect your viewpoints. Sorry if I got a bit carried away; this is a subject I'm quite passionate about as you no doubt could already tell .
Impact of climate change may be underestimated - Article worth reading
by cantleave 90 Replies latest social current
-
-
SweetBabyCheezits
I think I've gotten too worked up about this, too. A bit heavy on the sarcasm, I know. I'll tone it down.
I approached this subject with no dog in the fight about two years ago when I wasn't sure who was telling the truth. Both sides had some decent-sounding arguments, or so I thought at the time. (also had no political affiliation or care.)
In the end, I'm still no climatologist but I have to roll with the opinion of scientists whose work I respect along with the consensus in the scientific community. I'm not saying scientists aren't susceptible to some kind of impropriety. They are - as individuals, perhaps even some teams. It's happened before in the tobacco industry, I'm sure among others.
But to suggest the majority of scientific institutions are involved in an international conspiracy is ridiculous. The majority of scientists only care about a payoff under the table? There goes peer review being used to ensure that bias and foul play don't win out over solid research....
That, plus I hear too much anti-AGW stuff from the right that closely resembles the "crocoduck" arguments against evolution.
-
talesin
tt2c and SBC,, agreed!
We are all passionate about this subject, and THAT IS GOOD!
My comment was passive aggressive, and I apologize for that. What I should have said, is that I'm not feeling that great, and just don't have the moxy right now to have a spirited debate.
SBC, you said this, and I agree;
In the end, I'm still no climatologist but I have to roll with the opinion of scientists whose work I respect along with the consensus in the scientific community.
It's important to do our own research, and try to discern the difference between government-sponsored propaganda that supports the environmental destroyers (corporations), and real science.
It's hard to come to a consensus on this topic, as there is so much dis-information out there, but let's keep having lively discussions, backed up by fact.
We didn't have this option when we were in the Tower of Destruction , and I truly appreciate the freedom that we now have to debate. We are also free to say we were wrong, WITH NO SHAME, unlike those still imprisoned in said Tower, and I love that, too!
xo
tal
-
Glander
Interesting timing for this thread.
Yesterday's Wall Street Journal (27, Mar. 2012) carried an article by Mr. William Happer, Professor of Physics, Princeton University.
It was titled, "Global Warming Models Are Wrong Again". It very clearly addressed the core issue of how the Global Warming projections, and resulting conlclusions, are based on computor models that are not only flawed but selectivly skewed by the scientific community who are the evangilists of the climate change religion. He quotes the renowed physicist, Richard Feynman:
" In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience; compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong."
Professor Happer very clearly shows that this accepted methodology has not been applied honestly by todays Climate Change cheerleaders.
-
botchtowersociety
Glander, the code might be crap, but we can fix it with more powerful supercomputers.
-
Glander
If I follow, you are saying that what we have now is based on 'crap' but if it is 'fixed' it will tell us what we want to hear?
-
botchtowersociety
It was tounge in cheek. Our climate change computer models haven't shown much predictive power.
-
-
botchtowersociety
From what I understand, the overall polar bear population may have increased over the last few decades.
-
Glander
I assumed that was your point but thanks for confirming it.
In other words, the final sentence of Feynmans protocol "... If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong." is being selectively obeyed by the very scientists who have a stake in the subject, even if that stake might only be ego and a high profile committment to their "original guess".