Following is an excellent article highlighting the absurdity of anthropogenic global warming theory and how scientists themselves become fanatics when poisoned by political considerations:
No "Scientific Consensus" on Global Warming.
In 1975, Newsweek magazine warned us that climate scientists were unanimous in their view that imminent global cooling would produce catastrophic famines. Thirty years later, the prophets of doom are still with us, but now the culprit is global warming. Every natural disaster that occurs, including the recent tsunami in Southeast Asia, is immediately linked with climate change, no matter how tenuous or absurd the connection.
According to University of California professor Naomi Oreskes, the scientific consensus on global warming is unanimous. Last December, Oreskes published an essay in the prestigious journal Science wherein she claimed that not one of 928 research papers containing the key words "climate change" published between 1993 and 2003 contradicted what she called the consensus position on global warming.
Oreskes' claim to have found 100 percent orthodoxy in the scientific literature seemed unbelievable. The parallel that immediately sprang to mind was the October 2002, election in Iraq, where Saddam Hussein received 100 percent of the vote.
Personally, I had cause to scratch my head. In 1995, I had published a paper in Science where I noted that North America had undergone a modest warming over the last 100 to 150 years. But I also concluded that there was no way to determine if the warming was due to human activity or natural climatic variation. Subsequently I received a telephone call from a National Public Radio reporter. He was interested in doing a story on my article - but only if I would tell him that the warming was due to human causes. He explained, "that's what everyone is interested in". When I refused to compromise my scientific integrity, he hung up on me. It was my first intimation that the media intentionally filter the information the public receives.
Upon closer examination, it appears as if professor Oreskes has answered a question no one is asking. Her definition of the "consensus position" on global warming essentially amounts to affirming the validity of the greenhouse effect itself, a physical phenomenon that can be demonstrated in the laboratory. By a disingenuous process of semantic transformation, this conclusion becomes an excuse for reforming our entire civilization.
The interesting and significant questions are left unanswered. What will be the magnitude of any future warming? If it occurs, will global warming be detrimental or beneficial? If the effects of global warming are detrimental, will the cost of mitigation be greater than any possible benefits? These are the questions that have to be addressed before any rational policy decisions can be made.
The most troubling aspect of the Oreskes Flap is the idea that scientific truth depends on consensus. In the seventeenth century, an irascible Italian mathematician noted, "the conclusions of Natural Science are true and necessary, and the judgment of men has nothing to do with them." When he was in a less temperate mood - his normal state -Galileo put it less tactfully when he stated, "the crowd of fools who know nothing is infinite".
The history of science repeatedly illustrates that human consensus has no relationship with truth. In 1915, a German meteorologist published a book where he claimed that continents drift over the face of the Earth. Continental drift was rejected by American geologists with near unanimity, and Alfred Wegener froze to death in Greenland in 1930. By 1955, his theory of continental drift had been relegated to the same category as Bigfoot, flying saucers, and astrology.
But as new evidence emerged, Wegener was vindicated. By 1970, the reality of continental drift was recognized by earth scientists. Professor Oreskes' endorsement of truth by consensus is something that could never be made by any person who has studied the history of science. Or could it? The most astonishing aspect of this entire affair is that professor Oreskes herself is a historian of science who has written a book about the rejection of continental drift.
Global warming predictions depend largely on computer models. But according to professor Oreskes, such models can never be validated or verified. In a 1994 paper published in Science, she wrote "verification and validation of numerical models of natural systems is impossible." In a 26 December op-ed published in the Washington Post, Oreskes said that "we need to stop repeating nonsense about the uncertainty of global warming." But the man who invented the scientific method, Francis Bacon, said "if we begin in certainty, we will end in doubts."
It is perplexing that the lessons of history seem to be lost on an historian. But perhaps there is another lesson that can be learned. As Berkeley law professor Phillip Johnson has observed, "whenever science is enlisted in a political cause, the result is always that the scientists themselves become fanatics."
----------------------------------------
David Deming (ddeming@ou.edu) is associate professor of geosciences at the University of Oklahoma.
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/weekwas/2005/Feb.%2012.htm
Originally posted by wittywonkalmao!! You've just admitted what I thought about you wonky. You either can't read or you form strong opinions on subjects about which you know nothing. But it's probably both.
I didn't even need to read it to know what you were going to say. I posted to point out the apparently obvious.
Originally posted by SpastiGovAnd, let me guess, I'm sure you've read each of the articles supporting human-caused global warming in your other rant thread, right?
lmao!! You've just admitted what I thought about you wonky. You either can't read or you form strong opinions on subjects about which you know nothing. But it's probably both.
Sure...
Edit - And, by the way, just because I didn't read it doesn't mean I don't know what it's suggesting. Especially when it's coming from you, Spastic.
Originally posted by wittywonkaGive up wonky. You're sounding like a hurt wee brat whose had his comfort rug snatched off him.
And, let me guess, I'm sure you've read each of the articles supporting human-caused global warming in your other rant thread, right?
Sure...
Edit - And, by the way, just because I didn't read it doesn't mean I don't know what it's suggesting. Especially when it's coming from you, Spastic.
Originally posted by SpastiGovYou're (still) sounding like a broken record in a theater without an audience.
Give up wonky. You're sounding like a hurt wee brat whose had his comfort rug snatched off him.
Nobody here cares about what you're saying any more. Get over it.
You're the one who needs to give up, Spastic.
Originally posted by SpastiGovYaaaawwwwwwnnnnnn... This is getting so unbelievably old. I guess I only have myself and my morbid fascination with how you can be so incredibly sterile to blame for clicking onto this thread.
Following is an excellent article highlighting the absurdity of anthropogenic global warming theory and how scientists themselves become fanatics when poisoned by political considerations:
I tell you what I am looking forward to though, your little girl posse (DSR, Merk etc) backing you up with fawning lovey dovey eyes. Which one of you gives the reach-around?
Originally posted by EsotericLMFAO!! You're as gay as wonky.
Yaaaawwwwwwnnnnnn... This is getting so unbelievably old. I guess I only have myself and my morbid fascination with how you can be so incredibly sterile to blame for clicking onto this thread.
I tell you what I am looking forward to though, your little girl posse (DSR, Merk etc) backing you up with fawning lovey dovey eyes. Which one of you gives the reach-around?
I think the notion of debate in this area, as in any, is healthy, as long as neither side resorts to political biases.
The ABC - Australia's public broadcaster - has had a number of recent programs addressing this issue. You can access transcripts and audio of these ...
Ian Plimer is a well known Australian geologist and skeptic. He's fought a lone battle against creationists on many occasions, and is also a climate change doubter.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/inconversation/stories/2007/1962442.htm
Ian Entwing has examined the methods and arguments used by climate change skeptics.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/1977876.htm