quote:

Go read the primary sources for the scientific method. a lot of the papers are online.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

why are all the people presenting anti global warming opinions so thoroughly and completely compromised? If there was really any scientific doubt on the subject you'd expect young guys looking to make their reputations to be publishing on the subject but all you get are the same small group of deniers.

My "open mind" accounts for this anomaly by appreciating the economics. There's no $$$$$ on the side of "deniers"; while at the same time there is plenty of cash being handed out by the government and special interest zealots to the religion's 'saints'.

Follow the money.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

Go read the primary sources for the scientific method. a lot of the papers are online.

I've read plenty which is why I have taken the position that they are incorrect. NONE of them account for the past, while at the same time asserting they know for sure - the future.

Is this your way of stipulating to that fact? With "a lot of the papers" given as the answer from someone so convinced, I'm further confirmed that there isn't ONE paper that can accurately use their current fortune telling predictions and plug them into accounting for past 'global warming occurrences.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

The question I'd be asking, were I in your shoes right now, is why are all the people presenting anti global warming opinions so thoroughly and completely compromised? If there was really any scientific doubt on the subject you'd expect young guys looking to make their reputations to be publishing on the subject but all you get are the same small group of deniers. That would in itself tell anyone with an open mind a great deal about what is actually going on.

I find myself less than convinced regarding your qualifications to address the subject of an open mind.

This article lists scientists who have stated disagreement with one or more of the principal conclusions of the mainstream scientific opinion on global warming. It should not be interpreted as a list of global warming skeptics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Take a careful look at that list. How many are meteorologists or climatogists or any other field that would seem to lend credence to the opinions of these people?

I think that makes my point very nicely, thank you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
None of the dendrochronology or ice core articles deal with the past? Do you know what dendrochronology and ice cores are?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

And what point was that?

That your mind is closed on the subject. It is patently unreasonable to argue that people from other disicplines cannot possibly have anything intelligent to say or contribute.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MarsBonfire

Maybe it's just me... but do these arguments with Climate Change deniers (actually, Global Warming... Bush and the GOP demended the "softer" name) remind you of a famous scene from an iconic US comic book character's origins?

Jor-El: You cannot deny these facts!

Krypton Elder: Be warned, Jor-El, the council has already wasted enough time on this wild theory of yours...

Jor-El: And I'm telling you that we must evacuate this planet immediately! Krypton will explode in a matter of months!

Krypton Council Member: It's not your data that we have issue with, it's your conclusions we find unsupportable... I say Krypton is just shifting it's orbit...

Jor-El: This is insanity! It's suicide! No, wait, it's worse than that! It's genocide!

So, I wonder how that worked out for the "powers that be" on ol' Krypton?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

It is patently unreasonable to argue that non experts opinions are more valid than the opinions of experts in the field.

You never know. Sometimes someone from another field can see something more clearly because he isn't working from the same assumptions. I seem to recall that Metallurgists used to know that tungsten was too hard and brittle to be made into filaments, until a Physicist found a way to create them thanks to an idea he got from watching his Dentist prepare amalgam for a filling.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

It is patently unreasonable to argue that non experts opinions are more valid than the opinions of experts in the field.

You never know. Sometimes someone from another field can see something more clearly because he isn't working from the same assumptions. I seem to recall that Metallurgists used to know that tungsten was too hard and brittle to be made into filaments, until a Physicist found a way to create them thanks to an idea he got from watching his Dentist prepare amalgam for a filling.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

if a list of engineers and scientists in fields not related to biology that doubt evolution is presented to you, such a list is available, will you come to the conclusion that evolution is invalid?

Straw man, Ken. I have never argued that the "global warming" conclusion is definitively "invalid".

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I can graph the data or manipulate it in any number of ways but I don't know enough to interpret the data.

Yes, I understand. But what you are advocating here is faith. Faith in "experts". It's not altogether a bad policy, but it's far from being always the wisest one.

Unfortunately for this particular issue, the Earth's biosphere is an infinitely complicated place that is subject to myriad influences both local and distant. Climate predictions necessarily depend on the assumption that we have sufficient relevant data in our models and that nothing of consequence has been overlooked.

I'm not prepared to invest much faith (nevermind money) in that one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I'm not advocating faith of any kind and your condescension has grown tiresome.

Well at least it's good to see that you are dealing with views that differ from your own much better than you used to.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AnimusRex

In a democracy, the people like us have to vote on policy, based on science we don't understand
No one on these boards is a climatologist. No one here has taken anything more than a college level physics class. Yet important decisions must be made, policy determined, that will have drastic long term implications for the world.
Currently, most people take their political ideas and biases, and hunt for favorable scientific papers to back them up, sort of becoming jailhouse lawyers of science.

This is pretty mch how policy is determined in dictatorships- the powers that be determine policy, then find compliant scientists to write justifications. Stalin for example, had botanists write papers that showed that plants could be exhorted to work communally to increase crop yields. Needless to say, the plants were unimpressed.

I would suggest a different approach; we look to the scientific community for a consensus, relying on peer reviewed work. It isn't perfect- sometimes the scientific community can be wrong. But they at least know what the fuck they are talking about.