Global Warming is a hoax.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Feb 7 2006, 04:29 PM']And other scientists dispute the extent of that "Mini-ice age" and think that the reason people left Greenland wasn't because of weather but rather because the ships were sailing on different routes and it was now an out of the way place.

Strange also that google only has two hits total for Khabibullo Abdusamatov and neither of them are journals.
[right][snapback]879368[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
There are actually many scientists who do not accept the politically-correct "party line" on global warming.
They tend to be shunned by the media and by the "scientific establishment."

Politics does play a large part in this stuff. Predicting eminent catasrophe gets press and funding in a way less catastrophic claims do not.

[morostheos]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 7 2006, 10:36 PM']There are actually many scientists who do not accept the politically-correct "party line" on global warming.
They tend to be shunned by the media and by the "scientific establishment."

Politics does play a large part in this stuff.  Predicting eminent catasrophe gets press and funding in a way less catastrophic claims do not.
[right][snapback]879707[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Actually, I would say less catastrophic claims generally get more funding. Think about it - who is the major source of scientific funding? Goverment and industry. Neither are fans of the precautionary principle.

[Socrates]

[quote name='morostheos' date='Feb 7 2006, 08:47 PM']Actually, I would say less catastrophic claims generally get more funding.  Think about it - who is the major source of scientific funding? Goverment and industry.  Neither are fans of the precautionary principle.
[right][snapback]879720[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
That's not exactly how it works.
If something is a severe crisis, requiring immediate action, it creates a much more urgent case for the government to give scientists more funds to research the problem.

Most scientists are liberal Democrats, and scientific lobbies tend to be liberal politically. They know how to drive up government grants. It's a hustle.

Also, the media thrives on disaster and catastrophe (as well as being largely left-leaning.)

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Winchester' date='Feb 4 2006, 11:14 PM']Guns would still work. That would probably mean a republican run nation since the democrat party has forsaken the traditional left wing policy of violence for whining and movie making by vaguely Ewok shaped prevaricators.
[right][snapback]876101[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
i'm so glad you are posting again!

[Socrates]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='Feb 4 2006, 09:01 AM']Has anyone read State of Fear by Michael Crichton?
[right][snapback]875526[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Yep - he makes some good points. I'd recommend it, along with [i]The Skeptical Environmentalist[/i], by Bjorn Lomborg.

[morostheos]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 7 2006, 11:01 PM']Yep - he makes some good points.  I'd recommend it, along with [i]The Skeptical Environmentalist[/i], by Bjorn Lomborg.
[right][snapback]879745[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I happen to own that book.

I still disagree about the funding though. If something seems to be a severe crisis, requiring immediate action, it creates a much more urgent case to accomplish research that minimizes the perceived crisis to show that drastic actions do not need to be taken.

[Socrates]

[quote name='morostheos' date='Feb 7 2006, 09:19 PM']I happen to own that book. 

I still disagree about the funding though. If something seems to be a severe crisis, requiring immediate action, it creates a much more urgent case to accomplish research that minimizes the perceived crisis to show that drastic actions do not need to be taken.
[right][snapback]879784[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
You're not making any sense!

Would you be more likely to give money towards researching something you thought was an urgent crisis, or something that really wans't that big a deal?


This has been documented, by the way. Scientists who's findings on global warming didn't match the "politically correct" view have been refused publication in scientific journals, etc.

[morostheos]

Here's my point though. The Bush administration definitely agrees with you all that it is simply the liberal media that are saying the sky is falling and we're all going to die, when really that's simply not the case. Now don't you think, as president of the United States who also happens to have some very rich friends, that President Bush should be able to find some convincing scientists that agree with his administration's viewpoint to present reports to the EPA and the international comission on global climate change? The best anyone can say is "we don't know for sure."

I think the real question is, would you be more likely to give money towards researching something you thought would require major sacrifices on the part of the world economy or researching how those sacrifices might not be necessary?

I think it's pretty logical that one would try to make sure that there is no other explanation.

[JoeB]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 7 2006, 09:36 PM']There are actually many scientists who do not accept the politically-correct "party line" on global warming.
They tend to be shunned by the media and by the "scientific establishment."
[right][snapback]879707[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

A few years ago, a large campaign was mounted to get scientists who did not accept the 'global warming' theory in the US.

Another organization mounted a counter-ad, asking scientists name "Stephen" to sign on if they believed global warming was happening.

More scientists joined on to the second ad (all only named "Stephen") than joined the first one.

I think the situation gives a pretty clear view of how 'accepted' the theory is among the scientific community, which governs on consensus based on a preponderance of evidence.

Also, many studies are refused from journals, usually for bad, and sometimes biased methodology.

[ironmonk]

At one time most scientist believed the earth to be flat too.


it's been this hot before and it cooled.

it will cool.

then, it'll be this hot again, and it will cool.

there is nothing to make anyone logically think that the earth will just keep getting hotter. the earth will react to getting hotter and there are things in place to cool it off, then when it gets too cool, it'll heat back up... just as it always has throughout history.

[morostheos]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Feb 8 2006, 08:16 AM']At one time most scientist believed the earth to be flat too.
it's been this hot before and it cooled.

it will cool.

then, it'll be this hot again, and it will cool.

there is nothing to make anyone logically think that the earth will just keep getting hotter. the earth will react to getting hotter and there are things in place to cool it off, then when it gets too cool, it'll heat back up... just as it always has throughout history.
[right][snapback]880010[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

So are you accepting that the Earth is getting hotter? I have no doubt that you are correct, that it will get warmer and then eventually cool down again. In terms of the Earth, it's not that big of a deal. For humans, it is a big deal.

[Winchester]

The causes of global warming are not proven. It's a theory. We are supposedly coming out of an ice age still (theory)

However, considering we are stewards of this planet, it would behoove us to pursue alternative fuels, which would likely benefit not only our environment, but the political climate, as well. Certainly we can all agree that polution, whether it is causing warming on a global scale or not, is undesirable.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Feb 8 2006, 07:16 AM']At one time most scientist believed the earth to be flat too.
it's been this hot before and it cooled.

it will cool.

then, it'll be this hot again, and it will cool.

there is nothing to make anyone logically think that the earth will just keep getting hotter. the earth will react to getting hotter and there are things in place to cool it off, then when it gets too cool, it'll heat back up... just as it always has throughout history.
[right][snapback]880010[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Actually I duobt if any scientists thought the earth flat.

[Iacobus]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Feb 8 2006, 06:16 AM']At one time most scientist believed the earth to be flat too.
it's been this hot before and it cooled.

it will cool.

then, it'll be this hot again, and it will cool.

there is nothing to make anyone logically think that the earth will just keep getting hotter. the earth will react to getting hotter and there are things in place to cool it off, then when it gets too cool, it'll heat back up... just as it always has throughout history.
[right][snapback]880010[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Wrong, wrong and wrong again.

Nobody ever thought the earth was flat (famous powerful people), except 2 leaders of the Catholic Church. Lactantius was a Church Father and thought the earth was flat, oh shoot, that means the whole church is invalidated because they were wrong once! Your logic is flawed as that is the equal and clearly untrue statement. No science based community has ever thought the earth was flat. That myth, "the Great Error," was created and spread during the 19th century. A book that covers the failure of the Error to exist, the creation and some further analysis of the Error is Jeffrey Burton Russell's "Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians." (ISBN of 0-275-95904-X).

The earth has been warmer and cooler at different points in the history but two things stand out with this warming trend, one is that it has never increased that this rate in the past 10,000 years at least. Secondly it has NEVER been this much of an increase. This increase is at least 4 degrees higher then the 95% CI of all the proxy data.

[Iacobus]

[quote name='Winchester' date='Feb 8 2006, 08:41 AM']The causes of global warming are not proven. It's a theory. We are supposedly coming out of an ice age still (theory)

However, considering we are stewards of this planet, it would behoove us to pursue alternative fuels, which would likely benefit not only our environment, but the political climate, as well. Certainly we can all agree that polution, whether it is causing warming on a global scale or not, is undesirable.
[right][snapback]880143[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I hate people's misuse of the word theory. A theory is not a law and is not a hypothesis. Let me explain.

The Law of Gravity says that objects are drawen to objects with mass. An apple falls, the moon orbits, etc.

The Theory of Gravity merely explains WHY this is true. Why does the apple fall?

There is a key fundmental difference between the two and the theory can never become a law and the law can never become a theory. Furthermore, a theory cannot be proven (nothing in science can be proven but things can be disproven, read Karl Popper if you are intrested in why that is the case). From answers.com

[quote]#  A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that [b]has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions[/b] about natural phenomena.

# The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.[/quote]

Emphasis mine.