climategateFollow

Strawman (and false to boot). I have not only not stated that this is the result of a "massive conspiracy", but I have in fact repeatedly stated that it does not require any conspiracy at all for this to happen. I spent several posts explaining how the very nature of government's interaction with science can influence the results.



Which might explain the small number of scientists and politicians who are being paid via one process or another by people who have a vested interest in not seeing global warming policies enacted. It does not explain the rather large number of independent, retired, or otherwise unconnected scientists who have taken positions of skepticism towards the theories themselves and stronger ones against the purpose of the proposed policies.





Because people don't write scientific papers about things that are *not* happening. That's one of the other rather large strawman arguments used. That somehow the lack of scientific papers disagreeing with global warming theories means that global warming theories must be correct. I'd explain to you how papers on the subject of "climate change" are defined, and how that automatically restricts the way they can be reviewed and/or questioned, but you'd probably just argue I was spinning the subject.


Tell you what. It's wiki, but what the heck. Here's a List of scientists who oppose global warming. Feel free to click on names in the various categories and then look at their areas of expertise and the statements they have made. And how about you do something shocking? Instead of looking only for scientists with ties to some industry or other, or for whom there's some easy way to dismiss them, why not look at the guys who don't have any reason at all to take the position they do other than that they have looked at the science and don't agree with the conclusions at the IPCC?


Can you do that? It's easy to find some guys you can attack and dismiss. That's why it's called a strawman. You're picking your own target. But if you are to honestly form an opinion and perhaps attempt to find out for yourself what the "truth" is here, wouldn't it be better to go read up on the guys who aren't strawmen? The guys who do have reasonable and logical reasons for opposing the various global warming assumptions and proposals? Cause if you can't answer them, then you aren't really debunking the "deniers" are you? You're just lying to yourself at that point...

It's an interesting link, and I do like the graph. I'll peruse these a bit at my leisure, but a list of a few dozen scientists is not a published article against global warming. I'm not going to speak to the credibility of these scientists.

You insist that somehow all the scientists that support ACC lying is not a conspiracy? I mean that's what it would have to be, unless you're somehow convinced that the scientists have all been fooled by each other. For me, I'd follow the money, and while sure I can see that you could get some funding to do climate research, there is also a lot of money flowing into the pockets of people who deny ACC.

Edited, Dec 16th 2009 10:12pm by Xsarus

That's the best you can do? Well, here's a Wiki page stating that 97% of climatoligists worldwide agree that climate change is man-made.

What really makes it hard in these debates is the fact that the argument against ACC seems to keep changing. At times the earth isn't warming, then it changes to sure the earth is warming, but human's aren't causing it, sometimes that is defended with the fact that there is no evidence that humans are causing rising CO2 levels but when that's ridiculed the argument usually backs down to, well this graph doesn't show that. Sometimes it's a big conspiracy where all these scientists are making **** up to stay on the government cheese, other times the scientists are just mislead somehow, so it's not a conspiracy (tbh, I've never understood this one) Energy money flowing into ACC deniers is just because their interests align though, not because the deniers are being payed off.

Now, I think, the argument stands at "The climate is changing, and it may be caused by humans, but it might not be as catastrophic as destroying the human race, so there's no need to do anything about it".

Of course, this ignores other related issues like, say, localized air pollution.

Nobody is entirely sure how gravity works.

Why aren't we attacking gravity? I'm tired of it always keeping us down.

It does if it has a noticeable impact, it doesn't if there isn't an impact. The point people are making is that a subtle change in temperature globally can have a significant impact. That's the point. You're welcome to argue that it doesn't have an impact, but I'd expect some kind of cite besides, well, I don't notice it walking outside.

I would be more worries about the 0.3 mm sea level rise if I were you! PDF.

If that carries on for another 1000 years we're gonna need uto ummmm..... stand back a bit. Or something.

Of course! We should never consider things in the long-term!

It's WICKED cold here. Global Warming...pfft.

But I don't want to move to higher ground.

Didn't any of you see The Day After Tomorrow???

Where is Dennis Quaid when we need him?