Originally Posted by e_dogg
Except that the scientific process has not been followed...
Read through the "Climategate" emails and you'll see how the scientific process was pretty much ignored.
Do you realize that this whole "Climategate" thing affected a small subset of the data that has been collected for decades
? Unlike some fields of study, in science one bad apple doesn't spoil the bunch -- you can throw the corrupted data out and the rest of the study can possibly be just as viable.
Originally Posted by jakeo772005
No, I do understand your logic sir, as your mentality is in the right place. I do know I am sometimes a little controversial in my opinions, but I must stress, they are opinions. I have not got infinite scientific knowledge about most of the issues at hand. I have enough knowledge to make a slightly rational approach to the situation.
I also noticed a mistake. I meant to say overpaid. My bad.
I will concede that we are discussing your opinions here. I sincerely hope that you are quite young and thus have time and space with which to get better educated on this matter. If this is not the case, I hope that you will find time in what I am sure is a very busy life to read about how we as humans are negatively impacting our environment.
Mind you this isn't a "global warming" issue so much as it is "environmental science". There are matters that are far more immediate than the effect of excess CO2 in our atmosphere.
Originally Posted by e_dogg
I see your links and raise you this one
Experts looking for the same results peer reviewing data is not the scientific process. A theory scrutinized under peer review should stand up to people who expect to disagree with the findings.
And for true peer review, somone should be able to take the same data and make the same conclusion. Kinda hard when that data has gone missing.
Heck, even the former head of the CRU has said that there hasn't been any statistically significant warming in the last 15 years.
If people wouldn't go blindly charging forward to solve a crisis that doesn't exist, the world would be a lot better off.
Edit: Here's a fun read
by the late Michael Crichton.
Again, the linked article bases their argument on a single subset of data (tree ring study). This subset of data comes from conjecture itself -- that trees grow more rapidly in warm and/or wet weather -- but this data is not conclusive.
Even if you take the tree ring study and throw it out completely you are left with many, many other data points from disassociated entities that all point to the same thing: mean global temperatures over the most populated centers have risen dramatically over the course of the last few years, and the levels of pollution have increased at an even more alarming rate.
One of the most disturbing hypotheses that I have seen recently postulates that the Earth goes through warming and cooling cycles (a hypothesis that has all but been conclusively proven) and that it is currently in a cooling cycle that should end within the next 5-10 years. However, the current mean temperature of the Earth's seas and atmosphere -- here at the end of a cooling
cycle -- is at the peak temperature of the Earth's last warming
What is so disturbing about that hypothesis is that there is some very strong data that supports it. Unfortunately I have neither the time nor the resources to locate that data as I am at work, but I am sure that some time on Google would reveal the studies if one were interested in reading something that may conflict with their world view.