tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9286932.post3623706025534643032..comments2023-10-24T08:08:44.274-05:00Comments on the opinion box: Global Warming Catch 22Raphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11749238964003017949noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9286932.post-79491112425797427532009-01-30T09:05:00.000-06:002009-01-30T09:05:00.000-06:00I suppose whenever one makes sweeping statement (l...I suppose whenever one makes sweeping statement (like I did when I said that there is a 100% consensus in peer reviewed literature that warming is happening), one is asking for it. I was quoting Gore's movie, a non peer reviewed source in good faith.<BR/><BR/>I thank robbieclarken for posting the link. Nothing like good, solid facts to shut a loudmouth up, eh?<BR/><BR/>This, however, does not reduce the import of my argument - since getting 80% of scientists to agree on something is no mean achievementRaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11749238964003017949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9286932.post-25835791198912684402009-01-30T08:54:00.000-06:002009-01-30T08:54:00.000-06:00Hi Rap,There are actually many peer reviewed artic...Hi Rap,<BR/><BR/>There are actually many peer reviewed articles that question whether human activity is the main cause of global warming. See here for example: <A HREF="http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-reviewed-articles-skeptical-of-man.html" REL="nofollow">http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-reviewed-articles-skeptical-of-man.html</A>.<BR/><BR/>Also, <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Surveys_of_scientists_and_scientific_literature" REL="nofollow">surveys suggest</A> that "only" 80% of Earth scientists believe that humans are causing global warming.<BR/><BR/>While I agree that there is "a consensus" regarding anthropogenic climate change, it is wrong to suggest that there aren't any reputable scientists who disagree with this theory.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9286932.post-55489744084706858612009-01-30T06:25:00.000-06:002009-01-30T06:25:00.000-06:00What you are doubting here is the integrity of our...What you are doubting here is the integrity of our ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. <BR/><BR/>Even if there were a funding incentive system (I doubt it) for climatologists to claim that the world is warming up, it is clearly not adequate to explain the fact that NOT ONE PEER REVIEWED PUBLICATION exists in literature today which says otherwise.<BR/><BR/>Arguments about the inaccuracy of short term weather predictions do not hold water primarily because weather is a chaotic dynamical system. One can always say that June will be warmer than January, but cannot say much about the second week of January in comparison with the first week of January.<BR/><BR/>The funding incentive system, again, is not clear to me. Because there's a lot of money in making fuel-guzzling automobiles. A lot of money in making coal power plants. The industry lobby has got a lot of ridiculous things passed. Tough to imagine a bunch of scientists being influenced more by lobbyists. But one can see an incentive system for scientists to argue that the planet is NOT warming. Chevron, Exxon Mobil and Shell are among the world's richest corporations.<BR/><BR/>Of course, to really appreciate climate change, one must understand why it is happening. The physics in simple enough to be trivial; the evidence backs it up overwhelmingly.Raphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11749238964003017949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9286932.post-17714953042183002922009-01-30T02:30:00.000-06:002009-01-30T02:30:00.000-06:00What you are missing is the motivation behind the ...What you are missing is the motivation behind the climatologists. Lets see we have an entire community of research scientists who are dependent on grants and government spending in order to keep working. If their findings indicated that in fact the earth's climate has been changing dramatically for billions of years and will continue to do so regardless of how many billions of dollars we flush down the toilet of cap and trade how much money do you think they would get? Just like Bush used terrorism fear to fund his war in Iraq, climateologists use global warming fears to fund themselves. If there is no crisis, there is no money. Heck even Al Gore's mentor who invented the idea of global warming renounced it before he died and Al Gore convienently brushed that away. Not a single short term prediction of what will happen has actually taken place. the climate is cooling and when the evidence contradicts them they come up with a study that says "hey no matter what we do we won't make a difference for a thousand years so keep giving us money but sorry, you won't be able to tell if it works". There is one thing I trust more than scientist coming up with research that proves they deserve more money to do more research. Try common sense. If it looks like a pig, smells like a pig, it probably is a pig. The world will warm, and then the world will cool and humans could never do a dang thing about (except waste money and ruin economies).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com