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.
And you may wish to educate yourself on the process of how science works.
Maybe you could explain to me something. What is the Scientific Method? How does it work? What is its purpose?
this sounds blatantly confrontational. WHY is acting on confidence without 100% certainty idiotic? why do say the IPCC and climate change experts are incorrect and "unscientific"?
Nomander, your whole assumption is completely illogical. Science is continually evolving and changing as new evidence is processed through testing. It involves building upon previous work done. Of course it is not "certain". It won't be "certain" one way or the other for decades. All they can do is continue to test and report their data. They have however come to nearly unanimous conclusions that Global Warming is real, caused in part by man, not just part of a "natural cycle." Check the scoreboard.
Despite recent allegations to the contrary, these statements from the leadership of scientific societies and the IPCC accurately reflect the state of the art in climate science research. The Institute for Scientific Information keeps a database on published scientific articles, which my research assistants and I used to answer that question with respect to global climate change. We read 928 abstracts published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and listed in the database with the keywords "global climate change." Seventy-five percent of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view. The remaining 25 percent dealt with other facets of the subject, taking no position on whether current climate change is caused by human activity. None of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. There have been arguments to the contrary, but they are not to be found in scientific literature, which is where scientific debates are properly adjudicated. There, the message is clear and unambiguous.
Yet you continue to attempt to debunk and minimize all of the major scientific organizations' work on global warming without a single shred of evidence.
Is this based on your politics? Are you a dittohead? Or why do you think every single international scientific organization that can study parts of this phenomenon comes to the same conclusion? What is their hidden agenda? Or what specifically do you find incorrect about their conclusions?
Nomander, your whole assumption is completely illogical. Science is continually evolving and changing as new evidence is processed through testing. It involves building upon previous work done. Of course it is not "certain". It won't be "certain" one way or the other for decades. All they can do is continue to test and report their data. They have however come to nearly unanimous conclusions that Global Warming is real, caused in part by man, not just part of a "natural cycle." Check the scoreboard.
Despite recent allegations to the contrary, these statements from the leadership of scientific societies and the IPCC accurately reflect the state of the art in climate science research. The Institute for Scientific Information keeps a database on published scientific articles, which my research assistants and I used to answer that question with respect to global climate change. We read 928 abstracts published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and listed in the database with the keywords "global climate change." Seventy-five percent of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view. The remaining 25 percent dealt with other facets of the subject, taking no position on whether current climate change is caused by human activity. None of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. There have been arguments to the contrary, but they are not to be found in scientific literature, which is where scientific debates are properly adjudicated. There, the message is clear and unambiguous.
Yet you continue to attempt to debunk and minimize all of the major scientific organizations' work on global warming without a single shred of evidence.
Is this based on your politics? Are you a dittohead? Or why do you think every single international scientific organization that can study parts of this phenomenon comes to the same conclusion? What is their hidden agenda? Or what specifically do you find incorrect about their conclusions?
You are shooting with blank ammo, guy.
see, your looking at it wrong. a skeptic doesn't need alot of proof, just one person...
Nomander, your whole assumption is completely illogical. Science is continually evolving and changing as new evidence is processed through testing. It involves building upon previous work done. Of course it is not "certain". It won't be "certain" one way or the other for decades. All they can do is continue to test and report their data. They have however come to nearly unanimous conclusions that Global Warming is real, caused in part by man, not just part of a "natural cycle." Check the scoreboard.
Despite recent allegations to the contrary, these statements from the leadership of scientific societies and the IPCC accurately reflect the state of the art in climate science research. The Institute for Scientific Information keeps a database on published scientific articles, which my research assistants and I used to answer that question with respect to global climate change. We read 928 abstracts published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and listed in the database with the keywords "global climate change." Seventy-five percent of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view. The remaining 25 percent dealt with other facets of the subject, taking no position on whether current climate change is caused by human activity. None of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. There have been arguments to the contrary, but they are not to be found in scientific literature, which is where scientific debates are properly adjudicated. There, the message is clear and unambiguous.
Yet you continue to attempt to debunk and minimize all of the major scientific organizations' work on global warming without a single shred of evidence.
Is this based on your politics? Are you a dittohead? Or why do you think every single international scientific organization that can study parts of this phenomenon comes to the same conclusion? What is their hidden agenda? Or what specifically do you find incorrect about their conclusions?
You are shooting with blank ammo, guy.
Read the link, you decide. Or... preach on the religion that is "global warming". Heck, I heard that fires in California are now being blamed on global warming by the politicians there and they are "urging" people to vote through their new bill! Save the world! *chuckle*
If you can read through my entire link and say that you see no evidence that even puts the results into question, then you really have shown your position. Good luck with that!
"The petition site asserts that the number of signatures received is 19,000."
Quote:
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
Funny thing about wiki. My wife is currently working on her masters and her professor told them that "wiki" is not a resource for valid information. It is a non officially regulated source which does not guarantee the valadity of its information. Anyone who uses wiki as a reference will have all conclusions resulting from that source disregarded.
this sounds blatantly confrontational. WHY is acting on confidence without 100% certainty idiotic? why do say the IPCC and climate change experts are incorrect and "unscientific"?
Read the link I gave you. If you so honestly want to know, skim down through the various arguments on the issues. It isn't that I think they are "Wrong", but that they don't have enough information to consider themselves correct. If we accept their level of confidence on "consensus" while sweeping away other scientist who object, then they are not promoting science, but agenda.
Read up on the following.
Scientific method and its purpose.
The history of consensus and great scientists of the past.
Read the link, you decide. Or... preach on the religion that is "global warming". Heck, I heard that fires in California are now being blamed on global warming by the politicians there and they are "urging" people to vote through their new bill! Save the world! *chuckle*
If you can read through my entire link and say that you see no evidence that even puts the results into question, then you really have shown your position. Good luck with that!
"The petition site asserts that the number of signatures received is 19,000."
Funny thing about wiki. My wife is currently working on her masters and her professor told them that "wiki" is not a resource for valid information. It is a non officially regulated source which does not guarantee the valadity of its information. Anyone who uses wiki as a reference will have all conclusions resulting from that source disregarded.
*chuckle* Wiki on my friend.
Huh? My source is the Washington Post, reporting that 75% of all credible science supports Global Warming as being influenced by human activity, 25% is neutral and deals with other aspects of global warming, 0% opposes.
You are absolutely correct, wikipedia is not generally considered a valid source for academic research. So excuse me if your rebuttal is a bunch of yahoos signing a petition in Oregon, taken from "wiki".
Huh? My source is the Washington Post, reporting that 75% of all credible science supports Global Warming as being influenced by human activity, 25% is neutral and deals with other aspects of global warming, 0% opposes.
You are absolutely correct, wikipedia is not generally considered a valid source for academic research. So excuse me if your rebuttal is a bunch of yahoos signing a petition in Oregon, taken from "wiki".
Back to the drawing board, skippee.
The matter is settled for you, better start celebrating for the end of the world. I don't want to keep you. Take care!
The matter is settled for you, better start celebrating for the end of the world. I don't want to keep you. Take care!
YeaH, please excuse me but I'll take all the scientists over Rush and your Oregon posse.
Not celebrating the end of the world, but I certainly would like to see our country join the rest of the civilized world in some meaningful dialogue to address this, if not for me, then for the sake of my children and grandchildren. A little less selfish than just shrugging and turning your back on all of the science, IMHO. Hopefully the next president we have will be a bit less myopic.
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.
