Posted on 05/19/2008 10:00:16 PM PDT by newbie2008
Thank you for the links. Regarding ice cores and other measures, I do not doubt there have been other warm periods, that were not caused by man. However, this does not prove or disprove that man is having an influence on this warming period. Regardless of whether we are or are not causing warming, our resources are finite, and we should conserve as much as is reasonable. I for one switched to CFL lights about 12 years ago and have already saved almost $2,000 because of it.
THanks, newbie. I’m on the list and have been for years.
Peer review is also a device by which entire scientific thoughts can be excluded.
If the proponents of theory 'A' are in a position to and decide to exclude from publication journal articles which indicate data support theory 'B' and refute theory 'A', those articles do not get published.
A colleague wrote a paper on paleopatterned ground on White Butte in North Dakota, and his field work indicated that there were indeed permafrost polygons there on the butte, a remnant of the last ice age.
Despite the evidence, the paper was rejected because "...there never has been any permafrost in North Dakota".
Circular reasoning is as pretty as such rejections of valid findings get.
When one considers the reputations on the line and the vast sums of ongoing grant money for findings which enable the manipulation of the entire global economy, mere logical error would seem benign by comparison to the motivation present to stifle debate.
I share your concern. Even if there was no permafrost on the bulk of level ground in North Dakota, why might there not have been on the higher elevation microclimate of a butte. Incidentally, do you know how high this butte is, and can your scientist friend show sufficient variability between the lower ground temperature and the butte surface temperature to include in a resubmission of his article with this argument? At least such modern temperature data could make a good letter to the editor argument.
I believe the the paper was finally published in a different journal.
Note, too, that this happened over 30 years ago, even before science as we know it became quite so politically charged.
While there have often been periods of debate in the past over fundamental concepts or major developments in science, the haggling was in the open, the data were disclosed, the models stripped and examined and advancements made. To some degree, other factors have weighed in, (scientists are human after all), and bias may become evident. Usually, debate and disagreement, while on occasion polarizing, have been open enough that a more correct explanation of the past, present, or prediction of the future emerges.
With AGW/Anthropogenic Climate Change, this has not been the case as politicians and hucksters have seen a joint opportunity to fleece the often innumerate masses. Data have been concealed, interpolated beyond reason, and the methodology masked to hide flaws in both the data sets (measurement error or other factors affecting readings), and the processing of that data to produce predictive results.
While every scientific debate contains an element of 'can you top this?', ultimately, the adherence to theories honest data do not support leads down the career path of the dinosaurs.
It has taken more than a generation to go from the idea of conservation of natural resources and preservation of the dynamic ecology by reasonably limiting the amount of anthropogenic pollution on a changing Earth to the idea of the static 'preservation' of the planet and all that is on it (an impossibility in a dynamic biogeosphere with a long (fossil) record of extinctions--an unfortunate reflection of the widespread superficiality of scientific understanding promulgated in inadequate learning environments).
Perhaps the preservationists can halt continental drift as well. Maybe that will be their next crusade.
For those of us who prefer to know whether the effects of humankind's actions are significant, even to the point of being beneficial or harmful if either, the irresponsible invasion of scientific debate by politicians and soap-sellers is an unwelcome development. One group is interested in twisting the world to their benefit, and the other in...well, selling soap.
That shouldn't be hard at all, because the very basis of this thread is the 97% figure which has been proven again and again to be an out and out incompetent fraud.
It is based on the rousing, carefully culled TOTAL of 78 or 80 TOTAL out of several hundred respondents (still a minuscule number)!
I have no desire to waste my time to do the work for you that any informed adult should be able to handle all by herlself.
Good luck.
What kind of scientists are they? What about engineers? I think to make it justifiable they would need some sort of air specialization. Just saying.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.