| Final-Fan said: A. As has been pointed out before, it's science, not politics. Or at least it is science and SHOULDN'T be politics. B. When did I say "ZOMG ITS A FACT END THREAD"? Methinks the denialist doth protest too much. C. "They have never been scientifically PROVEN. They are all THEORIES." Just like gravity, evolution, and plate tectonics, right?* I want you to read the following two paragraphs very carefully so that you might comprehend what I am saying this time: "I'm not going to bother putting pages and pages of data up here but I am going to say that the huge number of renowned scientific organizations supporting one side of the "controversy" and utter lack of them on the other side may not make it a fact, but it's damn well close enough to fact for me to take their word on it. Certainly it's enough for me to take their word on it over the media or politicians or whatnot. "There is no dispute in the mainstream scientific community that humans are affecting global climate and that the effect is higher temperature." It is of course your absolute right to believe whatever you wish, but you do so in defiance of settled scientific opinion. There is no serious debate in the relevant scientific communities about the existence of human-caused global climate change (increase), and opinions in the debate that does exist, that concerning the EXTENT of that change, range from "bad" to "really bad" to "catastrophic". You are perfectly free to disbelieve the conclusions reached by EVERY MAJOR SCIENTIFIC INSTITUTION WITH AN OPINION ON THE SUBJECT, but you do so in defiance of scientists across the (rapidly warming) planet. I am not an expert. You are not an expert. I think the experts are right. You think the experts are wrong. Do you see how my position could be considered somewhat stronger than yours? *  I somehow missed that you actually do think that evolution is also not real. |
This belief that all major scientists have decided on the issue is a fallacy.
What we do have is a lot of "science journalists", "comittee panelists", and politicians who have decided and have used their political weight to gain the endorsement of scientific organizations. Just because an organization endorses a theory does not mean its community and members have as well. These organizations have to play the political game or they lose funding, thats no secret and to be a legitimate scientist you have to be part of these organizations to be taken seriously..again no secret.
But more over, Science is not now and never has been about "consensus". Its about facts, theories, and the practical tests that prove those theories correct. If anthropogenic global warming is a fact then where are the scrutinized tests that prove that theory? And how many times has it been reproduced and by which scientists and groups? Those are the things that matter.
Some examples?
Roy Spencer is the Weather Satellite Team Leader for NASA and brings up valid points about the greenhouse effect specifically as a cause. He points out that if the greenhouse effect were the cause the heat would be trapped in the troposphere and it would be hotter there than on the ground. But the opposite is true according to his satellite readings and research, the troposphere is cooler than the ground readings that are taken.
John Christy who iirc is a Professor of Atmosphereic Science and points out that of all of the greenhouse gasses C02 accounts for an utterly insiginicant percentage (far less than 1%). Where as water vapor accounts for some 96% of all greenhouse gas. So are we to believe we should fight water vapor emissions? Should I stop boiling water?
There are others who point out things like the Medievil Warm Period, a time in the middle ages when its much warmer than it is now. Yet this time period, even without the benefits of air conditioning and modern medicine was considered to be an era of great prosperity and growth. So why are we so afraid of rising temperatures?
Realize that the things I have pointed out aren't actually debated by the scientists. These points aren't in contention, and yet somehow we are to believe that carbon emissions are the problem and that if it gets much hotter we are all in big trouble.
Now if you want to tell me we have energy problems and we should conserve? I'm all for that, but don't come running to me screaming about global warming and carbon emissions. I'm not buying it.
 |
| To Each Man, Responsibility |
