3 ms·

Despite the fact that the 10 warmest years on record occurred since 1997, this will be seen as proof that global warming is a liberal myth.

DanielBMarkham 18y ago
liberals not required. It's just bad science to extend scientific consensus into the political arena. It makes scientists political figures. Politics and science work in different ways. Science should always be willing to be proven wrong. Politics is about fear and emotion and statements and consensus and all of that. We already had a bunch of smart guys who ruled by consensus. It was called the church. Didn't work out too well.
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  There certainly is no official scientific consensus on anything. That's an oversimplification made by politicians for mass consumption. That's fine and dandy. Nonetheless, the vast majority of relevant scientists believe in global warming. Call it consensus, or whatever you want (or nothing at all), it's very real and stupid to ignore.
  - gibsonf1 18y ago
    What about the consensus of scientists that don't believe in the man-made Co2 theory of global warming and the lack of evidence to support the Co2 theory? I've looked at the research and journals for both sides, and the Solar scientists who are accurately predicting this current cooling and actually an acceleration of this trend seem far more convincing.
    - mattmaroon 18y ago
      The consensus of 1% of the scientists, when directly opposed to the consensus of the other 99%, is not very convincing, nor is their ability to convince laymen.
      - gibsonf1 18y ago
        I'm not sure where you get 1% opposed? The group of opposing scientists seems to be growing every year. Even back in 2007: "Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears " http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,1... And more recently 31,000+ scientists signed this petition opposing man-made global warming: http://www.petitionproject.org/ http://www.petitionproject.org/ Does this mean there are 3.1 million scientists in favor of the Co2 theory? Not that the quantity in either direction really matters, its the facts that count.
  - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
    Ignoring is one thing, asking for proof is another. I must have missed science class the day they talked about counting up scientists who "believe" in one thing or another and using as a proxy for personal responsibility. In my class, we were taught that science was falsifiable, reproducible, and tentative. I'm no expert, but I've spent a couple of hundred hours on the evidence, both pro and con. And so far, I'm not convinced of any dire calamity awaiting mankind if we don't act radically and immediately. If that's being stupid, then I can go spend some more time learning. At the end of the day, however, the climate is always changing. The question is to what degree is it anthropogenic and whether that's bad, good, or indifferent. Unless we're tying to control the climate to one certain setting (which has never been done), then, like all life before us, we're just along for the ride. If we _are_ trying to control the climate (because we like sea levels the way they are or some such) then that's ridiculously sisyphusian. You could easily call such ideas stupid.

DanielBMarkham 18y ago

liberals not required. It's just bad science to extend scientific consensus into the political arena. It makes scientists political figures. Politics and science work in different ways. Science should always be willing to be proven wrong. Politics is about fear and emotion and statements and consensus and all of that. We already had a bunch of smart guys who ruled by consensus. It was called the church. Didn't work out too well.

mattmaroon 18y ago
There certainly is no official scientific consensus on anything. That's an oversimplification made by politicians for mass consumption. That's fine and dandy. Nonetheless, the vast majority of relevant scientists believe in global warming. Call it consensus, or whatever you want (or nothing at all), it's very real and stupid to ignore.
- gibsonf1 18y ago
  What about the consensus of scientists that don't believe in the man-made Co2 theory of global warming and the lack of evidence to support the Co2 theory? I've looked at the research and journals for both sides, and the Solar scientists who are accurately predicting this current cooling and actually an acceleration of this trend seem far more convincing.
  - mattmaroon 18y ago
    The consensus of 1% of the scientists, when directly opposed to the consensus of the other 99%, is not very convincing, nor is their ability to convince laymen.
    - gibsonf1 18y ago
      I'm not sure where you get 1% opposed? The group of opposing scientists seems to be growing every year. Even back in 2007: "Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears " http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,1... And more recently 31,000+ scientists signed this petition opposing man-made global warming: http://www.petitionproject.org/ http://www.petitionproject.org/ Does this mean there are 3.1 million scientists in favor of the Co2 theory? Not that the quantity in either direction really matters, its the facts that count.
- DanielBMarkham 18y ago
  Ignoring is one thing, asking for proof is another. I must have missed science class the day they talked about counting up scientists who "believe" in one thing or another and using as a proxy for personal responsibility. In my class, we were taught that science was falsifiable, reproducible, and tentative. I'm no expert, but I've spent a couple of hundred hours on the evidence, both pro and con. And so far, I'm not convinced of any dire calamity awaiting mankind if we don't act radically and immediately. If that's being stupid, then I can go spend some more time learning. At the end of the day, however, the climate is always changing. The question is to what degree is it anthropogenic and whether that's bad, good, or indifferent. Unless we're tying to control the climate to one certain setting (which has never been done), then, like all life before us, we're just along for the ride. If we _are_ trying to control the climate (because we like sea levels the way they are or some such) then that's ridiculously sisyphusian. You could easily call such ideas stupid.