September 22, 2008
-
Do scientists agree on….
It has been brought to my attention that some people believe that all scientists agree that Global Warming (Oh, wait, the first decade of this century has been colder than the 1990′s so it’s no longer “Global Warming” it’s “Climate Change”- although you will never see an article that says scientists admit being WRONG ON GLOBAL WARMING).
So, according to World Net Daily (and I do realize they are a conservative site) “31,000 scientists reject ‘global warming’ agenda“
One could argue that the site is biased, but one can’t argue that the petition project (which boasts: 31,072 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,021 with PhDs) isn’t real – cause it is, regardless of weather the mainstream media wishes to report it.The petition states: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of
carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will,
in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s
atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate,“I guess there isn’t a consensus on man made global warming (urhhh Man made ‘climate change’ ) after all.
But wait, there’s more…
Is it true that all scientists agree with having fetal stem cell (uhhh embryonic stem cell) research?
I know CNN is quite the right wing site and all, but – oh wait, no it’s not. Then why would CNN put out a story that says that Scientists are in disagreement on Stem Cell research?
the article, entitled “Adult stem cells or embryonic? Scientists differ” suggests that not all scientist agree about embryonic stem cell research.
quote about what researchers say: “Working with adult stem cells, they say, may yield the same results.” – underlining – mine.here’s the kicker:
<i>”The root of the debate really comes down to the ethical question of
what’s the moral status of a human embryo,” he said. “Is it a person or
is it a piece of property? And obviously we have no consensus on that
in this country and I think that means we should not use taxpayer funds
to fund this type of research.”
</i>I guess scientist aren’t in agreement? hmmm…..
Are there any scientists who support intelligent design theory?
according to some – No, but according to one website – yes: “There are many notable biologists, biochemists, physicists, and
astronomers who support intelligent design, and their work continues to
develop the young scientific theory.”
Now , granted, the site is “the discovery institute, and it is a pro-intelligent design site. But does that mean it is lying when it claims (and names some by name) that there are scientists who are supporters of the ID theory? – methinks at least the names listed (scientists who have published on ID) are actual scientist who actually support the ID theory.
You see, I was recently informed that because Sara Palin is for allowing ID theory to be taught along side Evolution, and for Not supporting Embryonic stem cell research, and doesn’t agree with man made climate change,
Thus – Sara Palin is “Anti-science”.I guess all of the scientists who feel the same as her are anti science as well!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comments (18)
Man made global warming is just an ego trip for those who think they really are gods, like Al Gore. Man can’t muster what Mother Nature can do to herself, much less what outer space can inflict on the planet. No one explains the numerous Global Warmings and Coolings long before the Industrial Age. And history has shown that the warm eras were good for man kind. It opened up Europe and much of Asia for settlement, expanding populations, food, civilization, etc.
We still can’t and probably will never be able to control the Mississippi, yet my Chevy is changing the average temperature in Sub-Saharan Africa. Riiiight.
Anti-science are those who mask their ideology in a white lab coat and use it to propagate their social engineering plans. I’m not worried about space aliens, Will Smith proved beyond a doubt he can take them on with the fine pilots of the US Air Force. No worries there.
ID shouldn’t be called a scientific theory though.
regardless of the fact that many scientists may support it, it remains an unestablished idea. why should it be taught in public schools beside evolution, something that carries the weight of scientific theory? it’s unreasonable to contend that simply because some scientists might accept or advocate ID that this fact somehow establishes its legitimacy.
“we think we know how this happened, so how can we arrive at that conclusion?” ≠ science
i can surmise only one reason (which i think could reasonably be labeled “anti-science”) that palin might advocate the teaching of ID in public schools.
hopefully when she offers her explanation, she won’t be speaking in tongues!
@WyomingSheepRanch -
I’ll grant you that it is slim, but that’s what theory is until there is proof and then the theory becomes either disproved or becomes scientific fact. Right?
it’s unreasonable to contend that simply because some scientists might accept or advocate ID that this fact somehow establishes its legitimacy.
and please hear me – I am not saying that it is. I’m simply saying that there are scientists who support it, and indeed they support it as a scientific theory – according to their own words.
- Regarless, the reason why it’s posted this way is simply to show that indeed there are scientists who back it at least in the abstract, and to claim outright that it’s anti-scientific is sophomoric dismissal.
- For instance: ID doesn’t equal Creationism, but often that is the first criticism you see labeled in any anti-Id article. Even from serious Science-zines. They seek first to assault and may sometime later trying to argue against it’s salient points, but only after they spend multiple paragraphs on what amounts to insults.
“we think we know how this happened, so how can we arrive at that conclusion?” ≠ science
I agree, and it can be argued that humanist science does that the moment it begins by excluding the possibility of a creator from the onset.
i can surmise only one reason (which i think could reasonably be labeled “anti-science”) that palin might advocate the teaching of ID in public schools.
-she advocates the option of it being allowed to be taught alongside evolutionary theory.
I contend that if she were actually anti-science, that she would be against the teaching of evolution – which she is not.
@WyomingSheepRanch -
not to beat a dead horse: but per your link:
A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by rigorous observations in the natural world, or by experimental evidence (see scientific method).
- ID proponents indeed claim that through their observations (via microbiology, astrophysics, etc.) a measure of phenomena and claim that the data supports the model of an intelligent designer. They claim exactly that ID is a scientific theory.
i think the next sentence in the quote rebuts the notion that ID is a theory:
In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable.
intelligent design is neither predictive nor testable. it’s unscientific to reach a conclusion through what cannot otherwise be explained.
ermm, didn’t see your first response.
Regarless, the reason why it’s posted this way is simply to show that indeed there are scientists who back it at least in the abstract, and to claim outright that it’s anti-scientific is sophomoric dismissal.
point well taken
-she advocates the option of it being allowed to be taught alongside evolutionary theory.
in legal terms, i would say that this evidence should be inadmissible because its probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. teaching ID’s merits would make more sense in a theology class than in science.
I contend that if she were actually anti-science, that she would be against the teaching of evolution – which she is not.
my *assumption* is that she does not speak out against the teaching of evolution because it would be politically damaging. but that’s just a personal conclusion & i wouldn’t argue it as fact or “truth.”
It’s been a long time, sends. Nice to see you posting again. I thought it would be fun to stop by and spar with you a little like old times.
Lawyers number close to a million, if not more, in this country. It is but one step more to suppose there may be at least as many scientists, and on a worldwide scale, we’re talking about a scientific community comprised of millions – perhaps tens of millions – of scientific professionals. So, 31k “scientists” who are skeptical of global warming may seem newsworthy, but in fact, they are but a tiny percentage of a massive global community of scientists. Also, I don’t see where the article says that these specific scientists have any authority to speak on so-called climate change. Is this 31k climatologists? I strongly doubt it. Have all 31k of these scientists actually done scholarly research in the field they’re commenting on? It’s likely that they have not. Does a PhD degree give you authority as a credible source on all world problems? The answer is obvious. So, at best, the credibility of this article is sketchy. Regardless, as you well know, a scientific opinion doesn’t have to be unanimous to constitute a consensus.
Scientists do appear to have come to the conclusion, by and large, that global warming is occuring, and most also agree that greenhouse gases produced by man are at least somewhat responsible. There is much debate, however, over the extent to which man is responsible, as well as the potential consequences of said warming. The Russians seem to think it will be good, at least for them, since the collective thawing of Siberia gives them access to a buried plethora of energy resources. Many others think it will be bad because of rising oceans, which will flood coasts and displace millions. Regardless, there is certainly some merit in attempting to adopt more efficient, cleaner sources of energy, especially when you examine that the principle oil producers of the world (Russia, Venezuela, the Middle East) aren’t necessarily friendly to the United States. Many experts, and former oil industry officials, believe global demand for oil will continue to outpace supply regardless of efforts to drill for more oil. Oil’s days as a cheap resource are certainly over. Oil’s appeal has always been its cost, and thus its days as a viable and practical resource appear to be numbered as demand continues to rise. The United States needs to be at the forefront of the search for the next big thing, lest we lose out.
Many people, religious and non-religious alike, seem to see Intelligent Design (God-fearing people in one camp) and Evolution (Horrible atheists and secularists in the other) as opposing theories. In fact, Darwin’s undergraduate degree was in Theology. He was a believer in God. Also, Evolution, a scientific theory with a capital ‘T’, meaning it has been repeatedly tested for viability for well over a hundred years (scientists are often hesitant to say something constitutes an absolute fact, since there are always anomolies), was never meant to explain the origins of life, only the diversity of species. Intelligent Design is a philosophical theory about the origins of life, essentially saying that our existence is no accident. Evolution doesn’t claim life is an accident either. It isn’t so much the ‘why’ as the ‘how.’ People also have the perception that science is some atheistic force whose aim is to stamp out hokey religions in the name of collective enlightenment. This is actually false. Many scientists believe in God. Their aim is simply to know more about the world around us, the technical ‘how.’ Philosophy asks why are we here, which is where intelligent design comes in. So, God created us. Right? But how would it have appeared to us?
I don’t see any conflict between Evolution and religion as long as you don’t interpret the Bible literally, which many do not, considering they don’t cut off a limb each time they sin (I suppose that was never really practical anyway, was it?). The Hebrews weren’t scientists. More accurately, they were philosophers.
@JoshOfSophia -
Josh, welcome back,
Thanx for the ribbing. To quote Jules Winnfield “well allow me to retort“
you say:
So, 31k “scientists” who are skeptical of global warming may seem newsworthy, but in fact, they are but a tiny percentage of a massive global community of scientists.
please tell me how many scientist did it take to be correct about gravity? was it mas consensus that proved Newton right?
only in the late 20th and early 21st century is “consensus” somehow proof of fact – when in reality popularity has never meant correctness.
- Outside of your point then being completely irrelevant, it was very nice of you to add it in.
Is this 31k climatologists? Ha, ha, ha, ha. Sorry Josh, but climatologists arent sure which way a single hurricane will go in 2 days time, I’m sure then that they are 100% accurate bout 40 years down the road.
- incidentally, all of the other scientists who aren’t in your 31K – are they all climatologists? therefore their voice – by your argument isn’t valid either.
– again, your numbers game falls into irrelevancy.
Scientists do appear to have come to the conclusion, by and large, that global warming is occuring
Although I don’t agree with this unprovable overarching assessment, lets just say you are spot on – for the sake of argument.
using you logic I can claim the following:
Scientists “by and large” were convinced in the 70s that the earth was going into global cooling and we were all going to freeze to death by the year 2010.
Scientists “by and large” were convinced in the 80s that Acid rain was going to destroy all of the forestation in Canada and the world would come to an end.
Scientists “by and large” were convinced in the 90s that the Ozone hole over the south pole was spreading and we were all going to burn without 10million sunblock.
And scientists in the 70s were wrong.
And scientists in the 80s were wrong – there was a decade’s long study that proved Acid Rain had Zero effect on the environment.
And scientists in the 90s were wrong – the hole in the ozone is actually closing again and scientists really only know that the hole in it fluctuates now.
Incidentally -have you noticed that the 1990s were warmer than the 00′s? did you know that the 1930s were actually warmer than the 1990s?
- no offense Josh, but your info on global warming is outdated.
- no offense again, but the current vernacular is “global climate change” because scientists around the world are distancing themselves from the concept of “global warming”.
Regardless, there is certainly some merit in attempting to adopt more efficient, cleaner sources of energy, especially when you examine that the principle oil producers of the world
- I totally agree.
I have to laugh at how you and Aaron have been blog bickering back and forth. I’m working on him….but I guess not doing a good enough job.
Hope all is well!
Alice
Ah, the numbers game. I suppose that’s the appropriate launching point.
Typically, a theory is proposed, and is debated over a period of years. As with gravity, the same thing happened with evolution, and global warming.
While “consensus” doesn’t necessarily constitute a fact, it was you who purported that a lack of a concensus, albeit a small dissension, seems to indicate justification for skepticism. This seems to me even more unreasonable. But, by and large, at first, climatologists were skeptical as well. Scientists were initially skeptical of the tectonic plates theory earlier in the 20th century, as well as evolution in the 19th century. And, as scientists, their skepticism was appropriate. The theories were tested over a period of time and agreed upon, hence “consensus.”
There was never any scientific consensus about global cooling. There was, however, media sensationalism. Maybe there’s some of that going on now. Who am I to say? Actually, the debate during the 70s, 80s, and 90s was whether or not global cooling or warming would be the dominant climate issue in the next century. Warming won out.
You would be more apt to trust a throat doctor or a surgeon or perhaps a biologist over a trained climatologist? Climatologists who study “climate change,” or whatever you want to call it aren’t the people you see on the Weather Channel trying to predict which way the hurricane is going to go. And actually, given the nature of such storms, they normally do pretty well. But I digress…
When you talk about the 30s being hotter than the 90s or the 90s being hotter than now, where’s your documentation? I’m eager to see it, because I’ve been told differently. That is, are we speaking about a global average of temperatures, or are you talking about regional, or perhaps more specifically, temperatures in a specific place? I’ve often seen reports of 2000-whatever as being the hottest year on record thus far, and genuinely interested to see the contradictory evidence. I often also see reports that whatever city is having their coldest winter on record. These examples are typically used by skeptics as evidence against global warming, but they fail to realize the data climatologists use is an aggregate average of global temperatures, which have been rising slowly since the early 1900s. In fact, the debate was never about whether or not warming was taking place. Few dispute that anymore. What they typically dispute is the cause.
@Alice -
Oh, alice, it’s really no big deal, I don’t mind the bickering and I don’t think he does either – really. It just so happens that he and I disagree politically (religiously, and almost everything otherwise as well). I doesn’t mean that I don’t love him or would enjoy chatting with him.
Not everyone in life needs to agree on things. really…
@JoshOfSophia -
Typically, a theory is proposed, and is debated over a period of years. As with gravity, the same thing happened with evolution, and global warming.
you are right up until the “global warming part” as it didn’t take years, it took sensationalism, good PR, and poor mathematical models. Not a period of years to bubble up. – regardless, YOU SPECIFICALLY MISSED THE POINT:
Gravity was true weather the current scientific community took years to catch up to newton or not. And it wasn’t false when Newton discovered it all by his lonesome.
- it wasn’t somehow made true by consensus.
And frankly if the consensus was against gravity, then what? Would the law of gravity cease to be simply because the majority said it did?
Or did the world somehow become round after it was flat for all of those centuries????
it was you who purported that a lack of a consensus, albeit a small dissension, seems to indicate justification for skepticism.
I did? are you sure you are not reading into my post. I claimed no such thing. I only claimed that is was not anti-science to disagree with the claims of global warming, nothing more, nothing less. The rest is your additives.
“There was never any scientific consensus about global cooling.”
- Really? what is your source for such a claim?
- Wow, you must be older than me, because I remember the 70s different than that.
There was, however, media sensationalism.Maybe there’s some of that going on now.
- Maybe? c’mon Josh, you’ve gotta be kidding me. Here’s something for you to
Actually, the debate during the 70s, 80s, and 90s was whether or not global cooling or warming would be the dominant climate issue in the next century. Warming won out.
Really? what is your source for such a claim?
You would be more apt to trust a throat doctor or a surgeon or perhaps a biologist over a trained climatologist? </B >
No offense, but this question is why it used to bug me when discussing things with you:
nothing you’ve said or I have said gives credence to either one of us looking at sources other than scientists who are involved in the study of the atmosphere – meteorologists, climatologists, and any other ‘ologists’ that applies. Why you made that statement is beyond me, and IMHO completely nonsensical. Climatologists do study the paths of hurricanes and typhoons and the fact that you say they don’t doesn’t make it less so.
where’s your documentation? I’m eager to see it, because I’ve been told differently
I love this game.
1st) I post with links.
2nd) You respond without any links and many claims,
3rd) I counter your points with points of my own,
4th) you add no sources for your claims.
5th) you ask me to source my claims.
Dubious to say the least.
- No offense, but my purpose in life isn’t to be anyone’s personal google.
But given that you need help typing in 30′s and 90′s in the search bar, follow this link. and I selected a noticeable quote for you below:
“One was Anthony Watts, the meteorologist who last year famously forced Nasa’s Goddard Institute to correct a fundamental error in its
data on US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s but the 1930s.”"
“I’ve often seen reports of 2000-whatever as being the hottest year on record thus far, and genuinely interested to see the contradictory evidence.”
- Dare you cite an example yourself? Please, find me (and you) the global temperature of each year in the 200′s and compare it to the 90s please.
(incidentally, having ‘the hottest year on record’ for a specific city isn’t the same. But ironically you can get the hottest year on record for each of the 50 states and you will find that they are all over the map -pun intended. (and no, I’m not spending any more of my time looking up what you should be capable of yourself – I’ve done that for you enough today)
- Then, we will have a discussion of how irrelevant the concept of an “annual global temperature” is to show any relevant information anyway…(but that’s for another blog).
@JoshOfSophia -
“- Maybe? c’mon Josh, you’ve gotta be kidding me. Here’s something for you to “
for whatever reason the link got lost there;
try this: Here’s something for you to check out!.
I’ll throw this one in for fun…
New derivation of equations governing the greenhouse effect reveals “runaway warming” impossible.
and this…
Last week, virtually unreported in Britain, the extraordinary winter weather of 2008 elsewhere in the world continued. In the USA, there were blizzards as far south as Texas and Arkansas, while in northern states and Canada what they are calling “the winter from hell” has continued to break records going back in some cases to 1873. Meanwhile in Asia more details emerged of the catastrophe caused by the northern hemisphere’s greatest snow cover since 1966..
have fun josh…
I didn’t ask you for documentation because I didn’t think you could produce it. I, instead, asked for it because I was genuinely interested. I’m sure you’ve run into the notion that strange weather patterns, including unnatural coolings, are consequences of a collective global warming. That probably makes about as much sense to you as it does to me, but then again, neither of us are climatologists.
I suppose I must have read too much into what you were saying, but I think you’re guilty of the same thing in supposing I believe something doesn’t become true until scientists come to a consensus on it.
Consult the following link for information regarding global warming/cooling in the 70s and onward: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm
Consult this source to find more information about “2000-whatever” being the hottest year on record.
Consult the following for information regarding the collapse of prominent ice structures in the antarctic that have been around for “several hundred years”: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2008/2008-03-26-01.asp
I thought, since you’ve been my “personal google,” I should at least attempt to take up your request to return the favor.
I made the statement about throat doctors, biologists, etc. because the source you provided (31k scientists petition) doesn’t say whether or not these so-called scientists are qualified to make the claims they’re making. The source states: “in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties.” (italics added for emphasis) I think it’s reasonable to be skeptical, especially when the example given on the petition website has a PhD in “physics.” In fact, if you’ll go to this page, you’ll see exactly what I’m talking about. Although the website claims that these people have adequate qualifications to make the claims they’re making, it goes on to contradict this claim by listing nearly 10k of their petitioners as “General Engineering & General Science,” over 3k as “Medicine,” nearly 3k in “Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture,” over 4.5k in “Chemistry,” over 5.5k in “Physics and Aerospace,” including over 2500 Mechanical Engineers, and nearly a thousand Mathematics and Computer Science majors. While some of these professions certainly may have some training to make claims about global warming, have they actually done research in the field itself? The website doesn’t say. Out of all 31k scientists, a whopping 40 climatologists are listed! I think that’s reason enough for skepticism.
Also, if you’ll re-read what I wrote, I think you’ll see that I specifically said “climatologists who study ‘climate change’.” I never said climatologists do not study hurricanes, etc. There are different disciplines within each field, of course.
@JoshOfSophia -
Where to begin?… again
Josh, than you for entering into the conversation with me. It illustrates a desire to share ideas with someone you may or may not agree with, and I have always respected that from you. So please understand that anything I write or have written here that may be taken as condescending or mean spirited isn’t intentional – although it does often come across that way.
I, instead, asked for it because I was genuinely interested.
and after rereading the way I posted it. I do apologize as it was kinda mean for me to say it that way, and again I solidly take you at your word that you were wanting to know further. Others I may not, but I have history enough to know at least that much about you. :*)
“but I think you’re guilty of the same thing in supposing I believe something doesn’t become true until scientists come to a consensus on it.”
Maybe, but I was simply trying to illustrate the point that numbers do not prove correctness. It seems a point I’ve had to make over and over on this blog. It is what’s known as a logical fallacy and you can figure out which logical fallacies here
That site may help you in understanding how I formulate my arguments as well as how you can challenge said arguments better. Because I have a tendency to dismantle people at the point where their argument fails the logic test. It matters less weather they agree or disagree, but weather they can articulate a point. (and yes, you often articulate points rather well, which makes our convos fun.
shew, that was a mouthful. moving on….
Having said all of that, I see a fallacy in the overall gist of our conversation. It appears the game has now changed.
The game is now I provide links with justification to my arguments that also counter your claims and you respond by completely ignoring them.
Instead your provide me sites to “consult” in an effort to “return the favor”.
Instead you could return the favor by discussing the links I gave you and the points I’ve made. That would make me more interested in reading the links you sent me, because right now all I see is that you’ve ignored my points entirely. This doesn’t bode well for further discourse.
Incidentally, At some point I will engage with you on the polar ice caps issue, but in and of itself, it isn’t necessarily proof of global warming as the issue is a lot more complex than simply saying “The sky is falling” (or “the ice is melting”). As an example, the ice on the opposite pole is increasing, Having not looked at your link, I will go out on a limb and suggest the article doesn’t mention that solitary salient fact that counterbalances making the ice levels pretty much the same. (But again, it’s an aside issue that I will someday engage with you, but it doesn’t really prove Global Warming per se, so it has little weight to your argument in total.
Now if you would actually “consult” the sites I provided for you about how global warming isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. And then discuss what I’ve provided, I will gladly “Consult” your sites.In fact here’s another you might enjoy (try to go to all 5 of the segments too.
Then come back and lets chat about the points I’ve made.
as for I think it’s reasonable to be skeptical,????
let me say this, if you actually applied that same skepticism across the board, I might agree, as it stands, you don’t seem to.
It appears that you apply skepticism to the 31K who oppose the global Warming issue, but not the rest who support it.
BTW, this is where your numbers game falls flat AGAIN,
You seem to be suggesting that those Mere 40 climatologists don’t deserve their say? lest there be more and then they would be acceptable to you.
- Towit I say simply – baloney. Incidentally, climatology – as you so rightly claim, isn’t the only field that deal with global warming.
(as an aside – given that the main justification for Global warming is an oversimplified mathematical model, I would suggest that Physics, Aerospace, and mathematics are perfect fields to challenge the GW theory as they deal more with mathematical equations than do climatologist in total.)
Is it safe to say that the majority of scientists who support GW theory are actually climatologists or atmospheric scientist? Methinks not. Methinks that you don’t apply your numbers fallacy when it comes to scientists who agree with you. But I also don’t agree that this somehow lessens their credibility simply because they are in different fields of science. You however, have made that claim – well you’ve made that claim against scientist who don’t agree with you anyway. Make it against the other scientists you agree with and we’ll be getting somewhere….
@sends -
“Is it safe to say that the majority of scientists who support GW theory are actually climatologists or atmospheric scientist? Methinks not. Methinks that you don’t apply your numbers fallacy when it comes to scientists who agree with you.”
You’re probably right about that. But I think, regardless, the article falls flat once you consider those points. The article means to convey a message that science hasn’t made up its mind about global warming. It cites 31k signatories who have degrees in some scientific field. Upon further examination, only 41 of these scientists have actually done research in the field they’re commenting on. Now, to be sure, you don’t have to be a climatologist to form an opinion about global warming. But, when consulting a scientist about some genetic anomaly, I think it’s safe to say you should consult a geneticist and not a climatologist. Am I right?
Perhaps I should be careful to consider this same question when examining my sources. You’re right when I say I don’t usually approach a source with the amount of skepticism I approach the sources you’ve provided, because my sources confirm what I already believe. After examining the 31k scientists’ article, I think you’ve become a victim of this same faulty approach. Sincerely, this is something I think I need to work on. In your case, you can decide for yourself.
And truly, I harbor no hostility towards you and have a genuine urge to challenge and be challenged, and you always oblige me, which is why I’m here.
We can find sources all over the place that confirm our own viewpoints, which only helps us decide to stick with what we think we already know. Unfortunately, we can’t know who is right — yet.
@JoshOfSophia -
“But I think, regardless, the article falls flat once you consider those points.”
- That may be true about the article – but not the petition itself, however it isn’t what the point of me posting is about. It was about showing that NOT all scientists agree on Global warming. And that It does show.
“It cites 31k signatories who have degrees in some scientific field.”
And although I’ve made this point elsewhere, please understand that this is simply 31 Thousand scientists who have signed on to this particular petition. Does it thus then prove that every other scientist in the world – who hasn’t signed on – is somehow for global warming – simply because they haven’t signed that particular petition? – Nope, but that has been suggested.
In fact, the sole reason why that petition was made in the first place was to counter the UN signature piece that was claimed “proof positive that everyone agrees”. I ask you to read This and tell me what you think – I couldn’t have said it better myself.
“I think you’ve become a victim of this same faulty approach.”
- Opinions vary.
- Something for you to consider – AGAIN – is that I don’t think the numbers game is proof. SO you can say I somehow have that faulty approach, but you would be missing the point entirely when you make that claim.
It’s faulty logic to say that 31K is right or wrong when 41K (or whatever the UN signatory amount was)is right because it’s more in signators.
The fact is that petition itself was written by people who are experts in the field – not by mathematicians. That gives the credence to the document itself.
I quote: “The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.”
The 31K signators simply says that the authors of the paper aren’t totally alone in the world and the scientific community isn’t in lock step agreement – as you (and others, and certain media) have claimed.
You can’t say “ignore the 31thousand scientists because I want the issue to be over” – science doesn’t work that way,
and frankly, only in the last decade or three has the concept of “consensus” been touted as proof of anything. It’s a dangerous slope into group think.
- Incidentally, notice that the scientists are all “American” scientists, this isn’t a “Global list” and to compare them to “all the scientists around the globe” is an apples and oranges comparison.
Science at it’s core is about questioning the status quo on understanding things, not simply accepting what everyone thinks is true.
- I will say this, I have read the petition and I read the UN one as well, And i’ve studied this issue quite extensively – because I love the environment.
“And truly, I harbor no hostility towards you and have a genuine urge to challenge and be challenged, and you always oblige me, which is why I’m here.”
- ditto
“We can find sources all over the place that confirm our own viewpoints,”
Yes, to a point. It took me a lot of digging to find anything on the other side of global warming. This to me was a clue that something was erroneous. How was it that in all the studies and “mathematical equations” was there never any dissent or questioning as happens all of the time in usual peer reviewed science? The answer -it was, like the deforestation and ozone scare I was duped into in the 90s,like the acid rain issue I was duped into in the 80s, thoroughly un-vetted and underscrutinized. But man did it make great copy to once again try to scare the masses. The truth – molder – was out there. And sure enough, just like the scare tactics of previous decades, it has been shown to be more hype than reality.
Can you find articles that support global warming theory? Absolutely! Because the media is all behind it and they have been blatantly unfair in their representation of both sides. They simply don’t allow dissent and don’t let other calmer voices be heard. That is what has happened this time around.
The fact is that it’s actually very hard to get anything that dares questions the mainstream media’s stranglehold on this issue.
Now, if there were articles available on debates about GW. If there were full disclosure about the science behind it and the media gave both sides of the issue instead of declaring the issue settled, and not allowing alternate voices to be heard, then I might be more inclined to believe the GW scare tactics. But the very fact that you can’t (correction – couldn’t) find that much about it should give you pause.
If you can take advice at all from me – always be weary when you only hear one side of the issue and are never allowed to see the opposition, or even a third option.
And frankly – as an environmentalist – it really pisses me off!