Jump to content
So, silversage, you are saying that since virtually all universities and virtually all scientific organizations receive some government funding, that their conclusions - and their work reviewing the work of their peers - is all skewed in the direction of a government conspiracy to raise fears of climate change? And that this government agenda has apparently been communicated covertly to these scientists through Republican and Democratic administrations?
Or are you simply saying there is no government agenda except to provide funding for research, and that the real agenda belongs to virtually all the scientists in the worlds who are fabricating their results in order to tap into more research grants? They decided one day, "You know what? If we make up data about the climate changing, they'll have to fund our research for years!" Is that your theory?
You guys have to work really hard to avoid coming to the simpler and far more obvious conclusion: the vast majority of scientists are doing their best to do their jobs with integrity and are making discoveries about our climate that are uncomfortable for us to know how to handle.
I'd join you for a glass of wine.
Well, namvet, the earth isn't precisely round, as is noted by researchers back in the ...... hey, wait a minute, this is a trap. I'm not falling for it!
The "NASA scientists' point of view" to which you refer is a group of retired NASA folks, the leader of which appears to be an aerospace engineer, not a climate scientist. Why should I trust him over actual climate scientists whose work has been published in peer-reviewed journals?
In your second point above, you list a lot of data. Are you a published climate scientist? I'm certainly not. When I start hearing those kind of scientists say that man-made climate change is most likely a fiction, then that will persuade me. Until then, I am casting my lot with the most credible scientists. To do otherwise would be absurd.
Some people really don't want this to be true. Some people REALLY dislike Al Gore. Fine. I get it. I would also prefer this weren't true. Maybe it isn't. But it appears highly likely that it is. At least that's what the credible scientists are saying.
PearlY, each of my three qualifiers were intentional. The nature of science is to work in probabilities. The vast majority of credible scientists think it is highly probably that (a) climate change is occurring, and (b) that it is caused by man's activities.
I would be inaccurate to characterize it as 100% consensus that everything is known. I have been careful not to do so.
However, when the vast majority of credible scientists believe something to be true, and that it may have moderate to significant impacts on the earth over the next 100 years and beyond, I think a response is warranted.
It would be irresponsible to look at a comet coming at the earth and say, "You know, the scientists think there is a 10% chance that comet will miss the earth. Let's ignore it." Even with no guarantees of success, and even at great cost, an effort should be made to divert the comet before it hits.
We don't know how bad climate change will be, but most credible scientists are concerned about it. That makes me concerned too.
Yes, MyFamNews. I apologize that tone is sometimes hard to convey in writing....but yes.
Igor, the sub-headline in the article you cite from The Economist reads: "The climate may be heating up less in response to greenhouse-gas emissions than was once thought. But that does not mean the problem is going away." This article does not support your theory that this is a phony crisis.
I'm reading that the science from peer-reviewed climate scientists is quite strong that climate change is real and that it is likely caused primarily by man's activities. When credible scientific institutions and peer-reviewed scientists start saying otherwise, that will get my attention. To my knowledge, that is not happening in the credible, peer-reviewed scientific community.
I forgot about Gore. Good point.
What frustrates me are those scientists who publish peer-reviewed articles claiming climate change is real and primarily caused by man. What do they know, anyway. Those darn scientists. They seem to be everywhere, and it is frustrating. It seems that for every good non-peer-reviewed study that pokes holes in the theory, there are a hundred peer-reviewed studies that support it. This is a conspiracy of the scientific journals.
And then there are the dubious organizations whose motives are all about money and politics. The American Meteorological Association, Association for the
Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Biological Sciences, American Meteorological Society, American Society of Agronomy, American Society of Plant Biologists, American Statistical Association, Association of Ecosystem Research Centers, Botanical Society of America. Crop Science Society of America, Ecological Society of America, Natural Science Collections Alliance, Organization of Biological Field Stations, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Society of Systematic Biologists, Soil Science Society of America, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research and on and on and on.
All of these have put out statements in support of climate change science and its man-made causes, but what do these organizations know about science? Nothing! Plus there are the universities, which are mostly a brew of steaming socialism anyway. We know what their agenda is.
They are all in on it, I tell you! This all started with Obama.
Last login: Thursday, May 16, 2013
2013 Best Of The Best Winners
The latest wine and dine news.
The Valley's people, wine & food.
Find your way around the Valley.
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2013 Union-Bulletin. All rights reserved.