They can maintain that global warming is man-made and is going to end the world so easily with the indoctrinated people that choose to give into a pseudo-science that has garnered unfathomable amounts of support, out of the likelihood that people enjoy doing or advocating anything that makes them feel like they are changing the world or whatnot. People like Michael Mann and the IPCC can manipulate data so profusely that they start a massive revolution. Their clamp on humans' brains cannot be shaken by anyone. They can blame every single natural disaster on global warming and man only because they know people will believe them. It's power fascist dictators dream of. They have it, and they don't seem to want to give it away. Even though there is mounds of legitimate evidence to the contrary (I've written papers and done my own research, I'll add links if you feel so inclined to delve into my skepticism), it must be silenced. Is not science about understanding the world around us and striving for the truth? Why must skeptics be silenced? How does that benefit science?
2010-05-28T16:57:40Z
And you're not? Sorry, I shouldn't have included that I could link my papers, which I can't, since they are in Word. I know it sounds like I was making that up, but I don't care. Here's one of the articles that I researched...
And please, do answer why it helps the progression of science to silence the stricken non-believers while you're at you editing.
2010-05-28T17:17:17Z
Substance or adjectives my friend, hmm?
?2010-05-28T19:25:47Z
Favorite Answer
When I was 12 years old, living in a Los Angeles suburb and already being indoctrinated in government schools, I was subjected to an environmental module that said that man's use of fossil fuels was increasing carbon in the atmosphere, which would cause a global ice age by the year 2000. It didn't happen, and in 2000, the result will be warming.
The American Meteorological Association has stated that the support of global warming is cause enough to doubt a member's credentials.
Science is the study of facts and whether they support hypotheses, not the suborning of facts to support one's politics.
Once again someone has muddied the water with ad hominums and wild accusations about unscientific science. What's left out is established heat and atmospheric physics. Let's look in: We know for a fact that there is such a thing as 'the greenhouse effect'. We know for a fact X amount of CO2 in our paper thin atmosphere is what keeps the planet from dipping below zero every time the sun goes down. We also know that heat moves from positive to negative. The heat in your six pack will melt the ice in your cooler. The heat leaves the beer for the colder ice. We also know for a fact that the more robust the green house effect is the more heat will be retained, or less heat will be allowed to escape into space after sunset. We also know that every year since the early 1800's, the beginning of the industrial age, when we began to burn more and more coal and later more and more oil the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen. From 284 ppm in 1830 to 386 ppm today. Nobody disputes ANY of the above facts. The physics of the situation are clear. Above X amount of CO2 in the atmosphere more heat will be retained. All of that excess heat has to go from positive to negative....that is it goes to heat up land, water and ice...the collected data clearly shows this effect and the physics demand it. At 400ppm, a number we will reach in less than a decade the heat index MUST rise and at 450ppm the rise will be rapid and harmful to agriculture and the lives of billions of people. The CO2 comes from the burning of fossil fuels...29 billion tons a year as opposed to 'volcanoes' .3 billion tons. Also, the sun isn't getting any hotter, just more energy is being retained. If anyone can explain away the data and the physics they're really on to something...but they can't. 'Warming' and climate change is real...no 'Al Gore' needed.
<<and understand that most of AGW is based on well-established physics and observations, not climate models.>>
Bob, you seem to think that climate models and physics are mutually exclusive. In reality what happens is that to get a numerical answer from the "Laws of Physics"is that one has to make a "model"to do the actual numerical calculations
You, in general need to be careful about non-specifically referring to "The Laws of Physics"supporting your claims. For example, yesterday when you proclaimed that a rise of 75 degrees per century would not be allowed by the laws of physcs, you needed to cite whic specific laws and show some numerical calculations to support your personal assumptions. For example. if you thought there was a law that a body's temperature never changed, you could have said "There is the 4th Law of Thermodynamics, which says the temperature of an object never changes, and a 75 degree rise would violate it". Then we could see whether such a law actually existed, and if it existed whether its implications were the implications claimed by you.
EDIT
<<Sorry, I shouldn't have included that I could link my papers, which I can't, since they are in Word.>>
Umm so these papers you were bragging about were not actually ...published...anywhere? They are in your basement or something?
BTW it is interesting that you honor Milton Friedman with your screen name and then criticize climate science as not an exact science. Economics is not an exact science, and I am not aware of Friedman's predictions being particularly accurate. If they were, I would be interested in you educating me.
Miltion your own statement says it all really "I know it sounds like I was making that up, but I don't care." Although for someone who has been dead 4 years your sentence structure is very good.
Joez: "The American Meteorological Association has stated that the support of global warming is cause enough to doubt a member's credentials." Sorry I don't know what the American Meteorological Association is, the organisation to which most U.S. Meteorologists are members is the American Meteorological Society and I'm sorry, but it's pretty obvious why you provided no link to back your statement. http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html You may want to look deeper into the meaning of this phrase you used "suborning of facts"
Science is not infallible -- virtually by definition.
Our understanding of any scientific principal is usually in a state of change. There are only varying degrees of uncertainty.
Consider gravity as an example. In 1687 Newton provided us with an excellent theory and equation to relate gravitational force and mass. The equation was so good that in 1846 it helped lead to the discovery of a previously unknown planet, Neptune, based on perturbations in the orbit of Uranus.
But of course now we know that Newton's theory of gravitation does not work to explain everything about gravity, and among other things it cannot explain the perturbations in the orbit of the planet Mercury. For that we need Einstein's Theory of General Relativity published in 1915.
Does that little bit of history mean that Newton was an idiot or that his theory is useless? Of course not. But it does mean that Newton, like all scientists was fallible. Science is not a matter of mathematical "proofs." It is a matter of finding data and formulating theories that explain the data -- often in successive approximations.
The "details" in your question don't seem to be questions at all, and are little more than a collection of misconceptions and straw man arguments, so I am not going to bother responding to them.