Global Warming: the money grab

[Steve Lee]

You Sir can Google till your hearts content, but until you post the links to both sides of the debate on 'Global Warming/Climate Change', your opinion falls short.  I can cite dozens of books, hundreds of bookmarks I have on the subject and even the Climate Science geeks can't even come to a consensus.  All the graphs and data sets mean nothing as they are skewed to the individuals or organizations mindset on the subject, as is yours.  This issue will not be solved in this forum topic or any other for that matter.  The only thing it will cause is derision among the posters and accomplish nothing but incivility, derision and hard feelings.

Yes, Mark, there are always two sides to a story but the two sides aren't always equally plausible. So for example, people who don't believe in evolution can always point others to Creation Science web sites for the 'other side' of the story.  The scientific consensus is that the theory of evolution has a strong scientific basis and that creation science does not, regardless of the fact that creation scientists produce papers alleging to show that traditional radioactive dating techniques are wrong, coal deposits are 1,000 years old, etc.

So, my problem with the arguments made by skeptics of climate change on this thread is that all I've heard is a bunch of non-sequiturs, references to badly flawed research, etc.  People can have, and in fact do, have reasoned disagreements about how sensitive the earth's climate is to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, but that isn't what has been happening on this thread.

No hard feelings.

[Steve Lyle Gunderson]

More grist for the mill. Tree Hugger.com

[Mark Samuels]

Yes, Mark, there are always two sides to a story but the two sides aren't always equally plausible. So for example, people who don't believe in evolution can always point others to Creation Science web sites for the 'other side' of the story.  The scientific consensus is that the theory of evolution has a strong scientific basis and that creation science does not, regardless of the fact that creation scientists produce papers alleging to show that traditional radioactive dating techniques are wrong, coal deposits are 1,000 years old, etc.

So, my problem with the arguments made by skeptics of climate change on this thread is that all I've heard is a bunch of non-sequiturs, references to badly flawed research, etc.  People can have, and in fact do, have reasoned disagreements about how sensitive the earth's climate is to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, but that isn't what has been happening on this thread.

No hard feelings.

It is apparent to me that we have diametrically opposing philosophical differences of opinion, which I will not debate in this venue.  I will agree to disagree with 'no hard feelings'.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

It is apparent to me that we have diametrically opposing philosophical differences of opinion ...

Yes.

It is not possible to do science without a philosophy of science.

The philosophy of science need not be explicitly noticed or stated, but it is present everywhere in what one takes to be evidence, proof, authority, and value.

Science, as such, is not an object of science.  You can't see, hear, taste, touch, or smell it.  It is not composed of matter-energy and is not located anywhere in the space-time continuum.  It is not subject to empirical observation, nor can it be tested in controlled experiments conducted by physicists, biologists, or chemists.

Yes, there are social "sciences" that claim to study science scientifically, but that claim is indicative of their philosophy of science.  They are sciences in the Aristotelian tradition, but so, of course, is theology an Aristotelian science.  Banning theology from rational discourse is part of the philosophy of science that seems to be dominant at present; whatever counts against treating theology as a science also counts against psychology, sociology, history, and literature.

[Tim Mellon]

Banning theology from rational discourse is part of the philosophy of science that seems to be dominant at present; whatever counts against treating theology as a science also counts against psychology, sociology, history, and literature.

Marty, I think AGW scientists are only trying to substitute their own religion for yours and mine. Kinda reminds me of ISIS ("My way, or the die way...").

[Tim Mellon]

Yes, Mark, there are always two sides to a story but the two sides aren't always equally plausible.

So, my problem with the arguments made by skeptics of climate change on this thread is that all I've heard is a bunch of non-sequiturs, references to badly flawed research, etc.

It's not just that Mann produced something that is not plausible, it is that he and his cohorts did it in an entirely dishonest fashion. Read The rise and the fall of the Hockey Stick.

It makes The Big Lie look like small potatoes.

What is also astounding is that, rather than admitting poorly designed research, they dig themselves in deeper and deeper.

[Steve Lee]

Yes, Mark, there are always two sides to a story but the two sides aren't always equally plausible.

So, my problem with the arguments made by skeptics of climate change on this thread is that all I've heard is a bunch of non-sequiturs, references to badly flawed research, etc.

It's not just that Mann produced something that is not plausible, it is that he and his cohorts did it in an entirely dishonest fashion. Read The rise and the fall of the Hockey Stick.

It makes The Big Lie look like small potatoes.

What is also astounding is that, rather than admitting poorly designed research, they dig themselves in deeper and deeper.

The North Report, produced by the National Research Council, doesn't agree with your assessment of Mann's paper or that of the blog you linked to.  Like I said, it's a matter of the credibility of your sources, and in this case I think the North Report wins out over your blog.  I don't think the National Research Council engages in fraud, do you?

No hard feelings.

[Tim Mellon]

The North Report, produced by the National Research Council, doesn't agree with your assessment of Mann's paper or that of the blog you linked to.  Like I said, it's a matter of the credibility of your sources, and in this case I think the North Report wins out over your blog.  I don't think the National Research Council engages in fraud, do you?

The North Report isn't exactly a ringing endorsement. Pretty waffley. 2-1 odds isn't exactly certainty.

As to fraud, who knows when it comes to government-funded entities? I trusted the IRS until recent revelations. I trusted the NSA before recent revelations. And all those plagiarizers like the disgraced Senator from Montana, Joe Biden and Neil Kinnock. Oh, I forgot: the EPA hiding all those official emails (Judith Enck) in private email accounts.

BTW, Steve, what exactly are your environmental credentials? I thought you were into astronomy, or is that Dr. Riddle? Would you care to share your CV with us?

[Jennifer Hubbard]

I think AGW scientists are only trying to substitute their own religion for yours and mine. Kinda reminds me of ISIS ("My way, or the die way...").

Finding it persuasive that there is a connection between anthropogenic carbon emissions and a rise in global temperatures is reminiscent of terrorism? I find the comparison to ISIS extremely offensive and unproductive. Let's dial that back.

[Tim Mellon]

Finding it persuasive that there is a connection between anthropogenic carbon emissions and a rise in global temperatures is reminiscent of terrorism? I find the comparison to ISIS extremely offensive and unproductive. Let's dial that back.

Sorry, Jennifer Hubbard, not when people use phony science as a pretext to take political action to ruin the world economy and unilaterally relinquish our sovereignty in order to control human behavior. Join their phalanx, if you wish, but not I.

Ask the California farmers what they think about the EPA.

(Not to mention the Endangered Feces Act.)

[Mark Samuels]

I think AGW scientists are only trying to substitute their own religion for yours and mine. Kinda reminds me of ISIS ("My way, or the die way...").

Finding it persuasive that there is a connection between anthropogenic carbon emissions and a rise in global temperatures is reminiscent of terrorism? I find the comparison to ISIS extremely offensive and unproductive. Let's dial that back.

Let's not.  Was it an analogy or a comparison or maybe somewhat rhetorical?  Don't see it as offensive as the writings of the far left on human induced carbon emissions.  Eyes of the beholder.  "Anthropogenic", those fifty cent words scare me.

[Ric Gillespie]

Mr. Mellon turned this thread into a political harangue.  As a 501 c 3 nonprofit TIGHAR is not permitted to engage in political activity.  Mr. Mellon has been banned from participation in the TIGHAR Forum and this topic is now locked.