| HappySqurriel said: Akuma, You didn't really answer my question ... The interesting thing about science is that it is not a popularity contest, and a million people who each wrote dozens of studies trying to demonstrate a hypothesis is correct can all be proven wrong by one person with one piece of data. It is unscientific to continue to blindly support an unchanged hypothesis when there is data available which questions the correctness of the hypothesis. Insisting that people must do so because some authoritarian group says we must believe in the hypothesis, and we must repent in our evil ways, is far more in line with how religion works. Now, there exists data which disproves man-made global warming until the hypothesis is adjusted and validated, and there are viable alternative hypothesis which should also be considered. Why do you blindly continue to support a discredited hypothesis that is being pushed by people who benefit if governments act upon it, without considering the alternatives? Personally, I consider all possiblities and support any actions that can be taken to reduce any human involvement in the climate (and for humans to adjust to a new climate) where the impact on our current lifestyles is minimal; basically I support due diligence in protecting the climate under the realization that current hypothesis are most likely incorrect, inaccurate and incomplete. I don't really have a "Dog in this fight" except to try to protect everyone from a group of morons who don't understand the scientific method, and abuse the system for personal gain at the expense of everyone. |
I don't really see how you can say it has disproved the previous model. On what timescale? The previous model is based on predictions of what will occur in the future. Until the future happens, you can't really say it has been disproved. And the aggregate trend still demonstrates that things are getting warmer. It sounds like you are saying to me that because the theory of global warming put forward earlier has been called into question that it has already been disproved. And that's just patently false. That's not even how science works.
I just think you are reading way too much into what the people have to say who question global warming. I have no problem with people questioning any scientific theory. But, as within any area of science, it is the new proposals which people should look at most skeptically as they have not been tested on the same timescale and have not been subject to as much peer review. A lot of people come up with new scientific hypotheses that sound great, but disintegrate as time goes on. For every Copernicus who shows everyone that the world is round and not flat there are 50 other scientists with new hypotheses who simply got it wrong.
And most great scientific theories take decades before they are firmly accepted. And people haven't really been rigorously questioning the previous global warming models for more than a few years. I'm not saying the new hypotheses are necessarily wrong, I am just saying that you can't yet say they are right. And frankly I would be happy if global warming all turned out to be a big sham. It would mean the world wouldn't get royally fucked. But when the results could potentially be catastrophic, you prepare for the worst. And the burden of proof still rests on those who argue global warming is not man-made based on the scientific evidence we currently have in conjunction with the potential risk.
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke
It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...." Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson
