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.
Actually, there aren't... mostly because anyone who agrees with AGW doesn't have to lie.
The press exaggerates or misunderstands things, but there is no concerted effort to deceive people on the AGW side. There is no pro-AGW Heartland Institute. Science-believers have NASA, NOAA, and practically every single reputable scientific organization there is... deniers have a handful of credited but politically motivated scientists and a lot of politicians and paid PR people. The only way that the deniers could be right is if science itself is a massive conspiracy.
The deniers are going to disagree with what I'm saying, but not because they actually understand the issue.
I don't recall ever using the term "AGW conspiracy". That must be your term.
ersion 6 also shows that land areas have warmed faster than ocean areas. Land areas have warmed at a rate of 0.19 degrees Celsius per decade while ocean areas have only warmed at 0.08 degrees per decade — both of these, however, are below warming trends shown by surface thermometer data.
On a regional level, this is interesting as well
Quote:
This includes a decrease in the warming trend for the U.S. since the late 1970s. Spencer, Christy and Brasell noted that the U.S. “trend decreased from +0.23 to +0.17 C/decade” and the “Arctic region changed from +0.43 to +0.23 C/decade.”
“Near-zero trends exist in the region around Antarctica,” according to the UAH scientists.
Now that's funny. You do know that if you make enough predictions some of them are bound to come true. If you develop dozens of models, surely one or two might be spot on, not just reasonably good.
Quote:
Notice that each of these articles includes links to peer-reviewed science literature.
Peer review, says an explanation for budding young scientists on the Web site of the University of California-Berkeley, “does the same thing for science that the ‘inspected by #7′ sticker does for your t-shirt: provides assurance that someone who knows what they’re doing has double-checked it.”
It “is at the heart of the processes of not just medical journals but of all of science,” Richard Smith, a prominent editor of a major academic publishing house has written. “It is the method by which grants are allocated, papers published, academics promoted, and Nobel prizes won. …When something is peer reviewed it is in some sense blessed.”
He went on to describe the flaws of the process, which he said are numerous and generally well known to academics.
The editor looks at the title of the paper and sends it to two friends whom the editor thinks know something about the subject. If both advise publication the editor sends it to the printers. If both advise against publication the editor rejects the paper. If the reviewers disagree the editor sends it to a third reviewer and does whatever he or she advises. This pastiche—which is not far from systems I have seen used—is little better than tossing a coin, because the level of agreement between reviewers on whether a paper should be published is little better than you’d expect by chance.
It's so flawed that it allows dissent to be published?
As the author concludes, there is no reasonable alternative to it. Science isn't flawed, people are. Peer review, with it's flaws, is the best means for people to reproduce, test, and evaluate research. What's your alternative?
Al Gore has gotten really rich from a very environmentally unfriendly medium, Apple & Google. But even before that he was getting around in private jets (bad carbon footprint) doing speeches at $175k and he grossed over $50 million on his movie, millions on his books and million upon millions on his investments dependent on regulations he lobbied for.
But you are now trying to move the goal posts and moving away from the context of the discussion.
Human's actions are causing negative consequences in the context of climate change.
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.
