[WSJ] Push to Oversimplify at Climate Panel - Page 3

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.

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 was hoping to stay out of this thread simply because the amount of ignorance that pops up each time is overwhelming, but my curiosity got the better of me and I just had to read the thread posts. It just went downhill from there...

Except that it has been followed except for a few mishaps, which is no way discredits anything else except to those who wish to make their own reality for their own selfish benefit. Try getting your information from non-bias locales before spouting off (and this comment doesn't just apply to you, but to everyone else posting in this thread).

As for your "Climategate" argument, you cannot take items out of context and expect to make a case and be taken seriously by anyone with knowledge on the subject. The fact that people operate like this on so many topics is why progress on many fronts - including social and technological - is held back. If people would quit dragging their feet because they think they will be inconvenienced, the world would be a lot better off.
Edited by stargate125645 - 3/1/10 at 12:43pm

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.
Edited by e_dogg - 3/1/10 at 1:36pm

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.

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.

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 cycle.

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.

The earth definitely goes through warming and cooling periods. We all know that there was an ice age that carved the Grand Canyon. And we know that Greenland is mostly covered with snow and ice but people used to grow barley and raise livestock there so at one point it likely was actually green (Wiki source - yes I know it's Wiki but it's quick and easy ).

My point is that the science behind the current global warming fad is not as good as many make it out to be. Does the doom and gloom of this 1975 Newsweek global cooling article sound familiar? Heck there's even scientific thought that global cooling is in the works again!

Way to prove my point by linking to random people who have no idea what they're talking about or otherwise untrustworthy sources. Only in your world are we talking about the last 15 years only, and are we allowed to take things out of context to prove to ourselves that what we believe is correct even if not based in reality. So please, continue to prove my point. Your strawman arguments, as in the post just above mine, are typical for drawing attention away from the facts at hand because no real substance exists behind your arguments.
Edited by stargate125645 - 3/1/10 at 3:28pm

The Press will take any story and run with it as long as it sells. With decreasing sales, the stories get better and better.

Any sort of panic makes more people buy the paper or watch the news. It also helps when there is ambiguity to it all.

Warming and cooling scares have been around since the first guy at a newspaper company bought a thermometer.

Exactly. The energy and funding should be focused on faster travel and finding a suitable planet for human to live on. We're going to use up the earth's resources sooner or later. Extending the life of the earth for 50-100 years by living "green" is not going to help the survival of the human race. But if we can somehow find another planet or find a way to terraform a planet, then the human race will have a much better chance at survival.

I don't have a carbon footprint, i drive everywhere.