Posted on 04/19/2008 11:56:23 AM PDT by RogerFGay
Al Gore is starting to remind me of Jim Jones.
There is some very good discussion of recent temperature data and projections here that is still skeptical, but less misleading:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/real-climate-tries-to-spin-pielke-a-curious-lesson-2/
A committee on Climate Change could hardly deny climate change. They could disband without comment or with comment but they could not remain as a funding center.
bookmarking
The question isn’t whether climate changes. It’s about why.
What would you do with, say, $20 million a year after CEO retirement? It's either way too much or not enough for comfort. Count your blessings.
The question is possibly a why question, although a scientist would be looking for a how and how much. A why question would be political, and this is the proper domain of climate change—politics and power.
Climate ping!
“There is of course a great deal of evidence that can be interpreted to support the IPCC’s position.”
OK, you supply the graph illustrating all that evidence. Otherwise, please recant.
No. Scientists look for why all the time. Why questions are not automatically political. In fact, making them so automatically invites explanations that benefit political positions - not a way to reach the truth.
Unfortunately some do and shouldn't. Why implies purpose, purpose belongs to humanistic sciences such as psychology and politics, history. Scientists look to describe. If they seek cause they should not be in the field of mathematical sciences.
OK. So you have a degree in humanities. And you’re better qualified to figure out why climate changes? How so?
Leaping. I actually have a degree in a natural science.
Why do you think that people with humanities degrees are better qualified than scientists to figure out why climate changes?
Still leaping. Climate change is a political thing. It doesn’t matter if the climate is changing or not. Tax revenue and various other fees are at stake.
>Why implies purpose, purpose belongs to humanistic sciences such as psychology and politics, history. Scientists look to describe. If they seek cause they should not be in the field of mathematical sciences.
Are you saying that trying to understand why, for example, a semiconductor has specific properties, is not proper science? If so, I disagree.
You'll never know why. You'll know how it works well enough to use in in a circuit design.
For a better description of the Hockey Stick, see What is the Hockey Stick Debate About?
McIntyre and McKitrick have more recent stuff added to the debate, but that's still a pretty good place to start reading about it. More recent stuff at Climate Audit
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.