in fact here is a link to a great opinion piece that best describes my opinion:
in fact here is a link to a great opinion piece that best describes my opinion:
Just looking at a list and calling the 900 plus scientific papers "lies" because you don't like a few of the sources is a logical "straw man" fallacy. My statement never has been that the science is conclusive about AGW. I am a skeptic. My assertion is that there are well respected scientist doing peer reviewed research that do not agree with or state there isn't enough research to make a decision about AGW.
Because actual scientists in a field are doing actual research on the topic, and they have been through all the debates and reviews and all that.
Of course, that still doesn't mean that some scientists in a field can't be dishonest scumbags who consciously spread falsehoods about their field because of their political or religious beliefs.
Case in point. Notice how you are referring to things like speeches and blog posts rather than actual scientific papers?
And as I pointed out above, there are always some scientists within a field who sadly let their ideology cloud their minds.
Your statements here belie an arrogance that is inappropriate. You over simply a complex issue by essentially stating that all skeptics do not have any peer reviewed work, or are intentionally misleading people. Here is a website full of scientists with the correct qualifications that disagree with the AGW establishment with peer reviewed papers. http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
My only critique of your statement is that you equivocate the term "evolution". I agree that the stanchest creationist believes in micro-evolution they do not agree in macro-evolution two entirely different concepts
When I deployed to Iraq we were given the option of getting Anthrax vaccinations. As expected almost no one volunteered. About six months laterr we were "voluntold". I am now immunized against Anthrax if I touch it. If I breath Anthrax I'm still fucked. Totally worth the cancer I'm gonna get 15 years from now
Again I will restate the obvious. Being incorrect does not make you a troller. You claim that he has intentionally stated bad information. You have no proof that he intentionally did any such thing. You should admit that you have an opinion of his posting, and that opinion is not based on any empirical evidence. You are a poor moderator if you think that you have some sort of metaphysical understanding of other people's posts.
There are plenty of skeptics of AGW that have doctorates and other sorts of science qualifications.
I'm sorry, but who cares? It doesn't matter if you are Einstein himself if you deny simple and basic scientific facts, such as the observed warming and the human impact.
Being a scientist in one field does not make you an expert in another.
Why do you assume that scientist that disagree must necessarily be in a different field? A little bit of a superiority complex maybe?
Here is a list of scientists that are skeptics AND possessing the required pedigrees
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and Founding Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks said in a 2007 blog post:"[T]he method of study adopted by the International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) is fundamentally flawed, resulting in a baseless conclusion: Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. Contrary to this statement
Claude Allègre, geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris) said in a 2006 newspaper article:"The increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere is an observed fact and mankind is most certainly responsible. In the long term, this increase will without doubt become harmful, but its exact role in the climate is less clear. Various parameters appear more important than CO2. Consider the water cycle and formation of various types of clouds, and the complex effects of industrial or agricultural dust. Or fluctuations of the intensity of the solar radiation on annual and century scale, which seem better correlated with heating effects than the variations of CO2 content."
Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University said in a 2003 essay for the George C. Marshall Institute:"[I]t is very likely that the recent upward trend [in global surface temperature] is very real and that the upward signal is greater than any noise introduced from uncertainties in the record. However, the general error is most likely to be in the warming direction, with a maximum possible (though unlikely) value of 0.3 C.
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC said in a 2009 Energy and Environment paper with David Douglass: "...the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback.
Petr Chylek, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory said in a 2002 magazine article: "Carbon dioxide should not be considered as a dominant force behind the current warming...how much of the [temperature] increase can be ascribed to CO2, to changes in solar activity, or to the natural variability of climate is uncertain"
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma said in 2006 testimony to a US Senate committee:"The amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause – human or natural – is unknown. There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria."
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists, was reported to have said at a 2007 Vatican Seminar on Climate Change: "it is not possible to exclude the idea that climate changes can be due to natural causes".
It isn't trolling, so why are you calling it that? There is a specific reason why slashdot doesn't have an "incorrect information" mod option. Stop abusing the moderator position
mod up! a well thought out post. Just because you disagree does not mean you can mod down! This is a perfect example of how left wing nut jobs deal with people who disagree with them. If the data presented isn't something they like they will use ad hominem attacks and try to censor anything they disagree with.
Not saying right wing nut jobs are any better. They do the same damn thing
another classic slashdot example of "I disagree so I'll call it trolling".
oh great another ad hominem attack from a dogmatic retard
Why in the hell is this post considered insightful? Don't you realize that this ad hominem statement lend absolutely nothing to this discussion? There are plenty of skeptics of AGW that have doctorates and other sorts of science qualifications. Just because you don't drink the coolade and hop on the bus that gives the most government funding to your pet product doesn't mean you want to kill babies and bomb random towns. You are an ignorant prick.
Is it anymore painfully simple than "our current climate change is caused by human causes?"
My dev team despised the fact that add-ons would break so often that we had to switch from Firefox because no matter how useful the web development tool was we knew it wouldn't work in about a month or so. Firefox should be honest about its business plan and simply remove the add-on functionality. I am one of those people that started using Chrome because of Firefox's constant "updates"
I want a hard drive with some frikin' lasers!!!!!
"Here comes Mr. Bill's dog." -- Narrator, Saturday Night Live