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.
well, what exactly are you looking for? do you just want numbers? pictures? republican approval?
No. In fact, what you gave me was Republic approval - I'm not persuaded. I don't think old GW is the expert on global climate I am looking for.
I have read some articles in support of the believers conclusions that attempt to address the criticisms of the science. Those which I've read fail to address the criticisms adequately. If this debate is to be closed, I would expect to see clear and convincing evidence in support of the theory. I haven't seen it yet.
A politician or businessman swaying in the winds of popular public opinion is no evidence at all.
No. In fact, what you gave me was Republic approval - I'm not persuaded. I don't think old GW is the expert on global climate I am looking for.
I have read some articles in support of the believers conclusions that attempt to address the criticisms of the science. Those which I've read fail to address the criticisms adequately. If this debate is to be closed, I would expect to see clear and convincing evidence in support of the theory. I haven't seen it yet.
A politician or businessman swaying in the winds of popular public opinion is no evidence at all.
Not to mention Sheryl Crow and the rest of these high-minded, "intellectual" celebrities so well-versed and possessing "irrefutable evidence" in the confines of enivronmental science.
A step by step analysis of the research, including the methods for gathering data, and the reasoning behind the conclusion that are reached. From what I've seen, the data collection is questionable, the computer models are questionable, the variables are numerous and not well accounted for, and the conclusions are speculative.
I am hoping to see the definitive statement of the science behind the link between man and global warming.
I'm amused by the "consensus science is wrong" complaint I see all the time, which is based on a serious misunderstanding of how "public" science is done.
If you are a researcher at a major university, you rely on public (more-or-less) sources for your funding. You have to file grants, and one of the things you know is that there are a lot of other people looking to pick up the grants. If you are fortunate enough to get one, then you have to publish findings in peer-reviewed journals, and on a pretty regular basis, because the people giving you the money want to see what you're doing with it.
When your article finally makes it through the review process (assuming it does) and is published, all the other scientists who are looking for grant money snatch up the journal and read your article. They scrutinize your methods, your data collections, your analyses, your results and your conclusions. Because one of the better ways to get funding is to shred someone else's research. It's not that the journal comes out and scientists everywhere pick it up and say "Lo! The truth is revealed!" - they argue over it, and at length.
Much of the evidence the "anti-warming" side uses comes of of non-peer-reviewed articles, or articles which are only summaries. For instance, the Journal of Geophysical Research (there are specialty sub-publications) is one of the huge peer-reviewed journals. The Geophysical Research Letters, however is a much-looser journal with very short articles of cutting-edge research, which may or may NOT pan out. Anything cited in the JGR is a huge, formal, heavily-reviewed article, complete in scope and scale. Anything published in the JGRL is still in the "early theory" stage.
[quote=PNW-type-gal;652710]I'm amused by the "consensus science is wrong" complaint I see all the time, which is based on a serious misunderstanding of how "public" science is done.
If you are a researcher at a major university, you rely on public (more-or-less) sources for your funding. You have to file grants, and one of the things you know is that there are a lot of other people looking to pick up the grants. If you are fortunate enough to get one, then you have to publish findings in peer-reviewed journals, and on a pretty regular basis, because the people giving you the money want to see what you're doing with it.QUOTE]
That quote alone actually is indicative of the reasons why many DO NOT buy into the global warming hype and not just global warming, but a plethora of other government funded "studies" that result in your self-interest groups spearheaded by lobbyists cramming bill after bill down the throats of our sell-out politicians. The result is usually higher taxes and more "nanny" laws. I won't dismiss global warming as not existing, but alot of the human caused "irrefutable proof" is baloney. I applaud many for not rejecting, but just remaining skeptical. The government grant programs are the link to many between the flawed statistics and resulting ridiculous laws, higher taxes and higher consumer prices we pay in so many facets. If only our elected leaders weren't half as gullible all the time....
I'm amused by the "consensus science is wrong" complaint I see all the time, which is based on a serious misunderstanding of how "public" science is done.
If you are a researcher at a major university, you rely on public (more-or-less) sources for your funding. You have to file grants, and one of the things you know is that there are a lot of other people looking to pick up the grants. If you are fortunate enough to get one, then you have to publish findings in peer-reviewed journals, and on a pretty regular basis, because the people giving you the money want to see what you're doing with it.QUOTE]
That quote alone actually is indicative of the reasons why many DO NOT buy into the global warming hype and not just global warming, but a plethora of other government funded "studies" that result in your self-interest groups spearheaded by lobbyists cramming bill after bill down the throats of our sell-out politicians. The result is usually higher taxes and more "nanny" laws. I won't dismiss global warming as not existing, but alot of the human caused "irrefutable proof" is baloney. I applaud many for not rejecting, but just remaining skeptical. The government grant programs are the link to many between the flawed statistics and resulting ridiculous laws, higher taxes and higher consumer prices we pay in so many facets. If only our elected leaders weren't half as gullible all the time....
Then you missed the point of the rest of what I actually said - much of the global climate change science has been done in peer-reviewed journals across the world. It doesn't matter where the funding money came from, because bad science would have been exposed for what it was in the journals. My fellow scientists would LOVE to be able to point a finger and shout "Political hack!" in the pages of a journal. It's the type of thing you dine out on in scientific circles.
The technical parts of the evidence for historic global warming (I don't speak for the future projections or the economic analyses or the discussions of what to DO about it) have been laid out over the last 20 years worth of journals, a tiny piece at a time. Scientists are very good at looking at little tiny bits in detail, and it took the weight of a ton of these reports to be able to put together a bigger picture. The modern scientific era reward deep specialists, not generalists, and the point of IPCC was to get together, lay out the pieces and discuss how they fitted together.
I applaud your attempt to bring reason into this debate PNW. But remember most of these "skeptics" also don't believe in evolution! It's ideology and faith over reason and logic for these people.
In the end, they don't want to have to look themselves in the mirror and think, "Maybe the way I am living my life is having a detrimental effect on my children and their children." That would produce too much guilt. So they find fringe scientists out there or ideologues that tell them they are not effecting the planet. That way they can just keep doing what they always do (commute 30+ miles to work, drive everywhere, buy SUV's, contribute to sprawl, etc) without a stain on their conscious.
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.
Polar bears will be gone forever, too, never to return.
