3 ms·

The funny thing about climate change is how people treat it like a RELIGION. I have nothing against religion, but I do not like it when people treat science li

The funny thing about climate change is how people treat it like a RELIGION. I have nothing against religion, but I do not like it when people treat science like a faith - that is, take the facts for granted, and assume they are true, rather than trying to do what REAL scientists do, and prove their hypotheses false. I see a lot of scientists trying to prove that humans are a major cause of global warming. I see very few of them looking for holes in their arguments, or trying to prove their hypotheses wrong. Do humans warm the earth? Absolutely, no question about it. The question is whether or not we have a significant impact. The earth has had dramatic warm and cold periods long before we even existed, what makes us think that we are the catalyst for everything? Is it not a bit concerning that many so-called scientists tried to hide data that went against their research?

guelo 15y ago
> I see very few of them looking for holes in their arguments, or trying to prove their hypotheses wrong. Where have you been looking at the scientists' work? Have you been following their peer-reviewed publications to reach the conclusion that they don't question these theories?
- gavanwoolery 15y ago
  Being peer-reviewed is a joke - especially when it is so easy to falsify or hide data, as was done in ClimateGate. Being peer-reviewed is also a joke when your peers all sip the same cool-aid.
  - guelo 15y ago
    You did not answer my question, where did you get your information that the scientists have not tried to disprove the warming theories?
    - gavanwoolery 15y ago
      I'm going to repaste this for the sake of convenience: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the... If any study can address all of the concerns quoted here, I'll shut my mouth. In the face of some of gaping inconsistencies, I would think that many studies did not try to question their hypotheses thoroughly enough.
  - Tichy 15y ago
    You admitted in anther thread that you don't even know what ClimateGate was about, yet you cite it again. #fail
Tichy 15y ago
You sound like a creationist. Those stubborn evolutionists also allegedly take the facts for granted and never question them (never mind that for example usually creationists dwell on completely irrelevant 'facts').
- gavanwoolery 15y ago
  The difference between evolution and climatology is the difference between history and speculation. With evolution, you can literally trace evolution through time using geo-dating and carbon dating as fossils change shape. No "real" scientists argue against it (there are religious "scientists" that do though). The impacts of AGW are still mostly speculation. We do not have a huge amount of accurate data from the past (most of our weather records go back only a few centuries, which is meaningless on a geological timescale). There are many real scientists that are skeptical about the effects of AGW (again, the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the...). AGW is mostly about projections - so far, none of the catastrophic effects of global warming have been seen on any significant scale.

guelo 15y ago

> I see very few of them looking for holes in their arguments, or trying to prove their hypotheses wrong. Where have you been looking at the scientists' work? Have you been following their peer-reviewed publications to reach the conclusion that they don't question these theories?

gavanwoolery 15y ago
Being peer-reviewed is a joke - especially when it is so easy to falsify or hide data, as was done in ClimateGate. Being peer-reviewed is also a joke when your peers all sip the same cool-aid.
- guelo 15y ago
  You did not answer my question, where did you get your information that the scientists have not tried to disprove the warming theories?
  - gavanwoolery 15y ago
    I'm going to repaste this for the sake of convenience: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the... If any study can address all of the concerns quoted here, I'll shut my mouth. In the face of some of gaping inconsistencies, I would think that many studies did not try to question their hypotheses thoroughly enough.
- Tichy 15y ago
  You admitted in anther thread that you don't even know what ClimateGate was about, yet you cite it again. #fail

Tichy 15y ago

You sound like a creationist. Those stubborn evolutionists also allegedly take the facts for granted and never question them (never mind that for example usually creationists dwell on completely irrelevant 'facts').

gavanwoolery 15y ago
The difference between evolution and climatology is the difference between history and speculation. With evolution, you can literally trace evolution through time using geo-dating and carbon dating as fossils change shape. No "real" scientists argue against it (there are religious "scientists" that do though). The impacts of AGW are still mostly speculation. We do not have a huge amount of accurate data from the past (most of our weather records go back only a few centuries, which is meaningless on a geological timescale). There are many real scientists that are skeptical about the effects of AGW (again, the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the...). AGW is mostly about projections - so far, none of the catastrophic effects of global warming have been seen on any significant scale.