Does the "Global Warming" controversy exist because it doesn't follow accepted scientific methods?

Shut up and pay up, is what the layman is told. "The science is indisputable!" "The debate is over!"

What this layman hears is nothing but:

"We think . . . . "

"We are not sure but . . . . "

"We believe that . . . ."

"Although the data may be inconclusive, this is what is going to happen."

"We feel . . . "

We feel? Is that how it's done now? Can you imagine if school papers were done this way? Yes, I feel that the Romans should have been nicer and then they would have been able to give everyone a plushie.

Yes, see the comentary above but the general gist is that CO2 levels increase BECAUSE the globe is presently warming, Note that increased CO2 is the EFFECT and NOT the cause. Even if this were not the case, the oceans generate 99% + of the co2 currently being emitted - so if humand ceased ALL production of CO2 it wouldn't really make a difference anyway. The good news is that CO2 production is TOTALLY academic to global warming. The earth has gone through colder AND hotter periods than now in the recent past (thousand of years as opposed to millions). We are having a warm cycle at the moment thanks to Sunspot activity. The problem is that there are MANY tens of thousands of jobs based on "dealing with global warming and research" - a few charities too - all of which would have to admit they are worthless if and when the sheep stop following blindly - and demand to see a little proof. It also gives governments a wonderful excuse to introduce "carbon tax" and other ideas to screw us over for a little more money than they did last year. Mark

There is certainly evidence for global warming.

The controversy lies in whether or not it is caused by human activity or if it is perfectly natural and also whether it will be ongoing.

As a geologist, I know that the Earth has undergone many episodes of climate change long before human kind existed. The Earth is typically warmer than it is now and sea levels are typically higher than they are now. Many questions exist about the cause of the current climatic change such as:

1. Is it a natural part of the Earth's cycles?

2. Are mans introduction of greenhouse gases accelerating natural cycles or are they causing the shift on their own?

3. Since the temperature change has been slight thus far, is it simply a natural fluctuation?

4. How rapidly do natural climate changes occur?

These are the types of questions that simply can't be answered in a matter of months as some people would like to think. Geologic processes occur over a period of thousands or millions of years. Some believe that we are still in a period of the last ice age and are only experiencing a warm period of it. If that is true you can certainly expect things to warm and for sea level to rise. That is the reason why you can find marine fossils in places like West Virginia. Some others believe we may slip back into another ice age. If that is true then you can expect to buy more winter clothes.

There is not a single soul on this planet that knows the answer to the global warming issue or if it is even really taking place. My opinion of course is to air on the side of caution and think that making strides to clean things up is always good.

Is limiting our CO2 output going to make an effective difference in what is essentially a natural process? Probably not, in my opinion. Nature will take it's course regardless.

The real driving force behind global warming appears (strongly) to be an ill-conceived theory by a popular political figure that's hyped by the media to control how people think and where they willingly put their money. The 'go-green' agenda operates on the same basis but is a little easier to understand. Who's to say that there has been time to adequately test all the theories and present proper opinions? Or do they just skim the data, check the math and sign it instead?

Science that says man is responsible for global warming is as questionable as science that says it can cure the common cold. However, what makes the global warming science suspicious is that there can be no debate whereas other sciences welcome it to properly reach conclusions. I think holding back on the media coverage until something is proven is a great idea.

The scientists have stuck to the scientific method. It has been tested to the satisfaction of the editors of several journals (or they wouldn't have accepted it for publication).

I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. If the computer models aren't good enough, what type of "independent testing" do you want?

I like to think of myself as a realist. Unfortunately it's going to come down to a courtroom decision. Like evolution, which I accept in moderation as a (closed box theory) something that can nether be proved or disproved. Yourself being a interested party; What ramifications does the legal system hold over science? My personal opinion is that science has nothing to do with it. It's going to be enforced regardless.

ed: I accept the thumbs down award. It does nothing other then emphasize the system, my point entirely.

The Alarmists have thrown all scientific method to the curb in their zeal to pile on to the government grant bandwagon.

It's pretty sad..... I remember when the questioning/challenging/testing of theory used to be welcomed by all researchers. But now the financial rewards that are available to the 'Man-did-it' cult allows greed to get in the way of TRUE science.... so sad.

I guess that scientists are only human..... they have to buy braces for the kids and a new Saab every few years.

http://www.answers.com/topic/scientific-method

No one is skipping over the "testing" stage of the Scientific Method. Most scientists researching climate change predict long term temps increasing, contrary to what you state. Computer models are part of the "testing" stage.

I see your hypothesis is that "Computer models are notoriously undependable." So, where is your proof so that it may be independently verified?

Maybe you shouldn't rush into denial with your sensational claims, because the physics is not on your side.

That consensus is offered as a defense of their thinking is a sign that their thinking leaves a great deal to be desired.

Personally I would rather face the issue now and get a head start before it might be too late. Who knows, you can never be too sure, after all humankind only has one planet to live on at this moment. We need to make sure our survival continues.