In response to:

The Climate is Changing (It's Fall!)

Jon315 Wrote: Nov 13, 2013 1:14 PM
"Leave the science to the scientists..." ...and leave your opinions on the information you are being presented to Authority. (?!) No thanks. The subject of climate change is a too politically charged, with too many resources at stake (i.e., money and state power), to allow those who stand to benefit the most from those resources to draw the sole conclusion as to what the information means. Would a "Science Avenger" allow any "scientist" or coalition of scientists to state with authority that the science is settled on any theory? (In other words, that the causal relationships espoused in climate theory are fact?)
GaryL1 Wrote: Nov 13, 2013 7:56 PM
What about the increse in glacer thickness at the South Pole, and the increase of polar ice at the North Pole. Also, more scientists each year discredit the fairy-tales that AGW alarmests promote.
GaryL1 Wrote: Nov 13, 2013 7:41 PM
Dr. Mann has tried to minimize the middle ages warming period when the climate was warmer than it is now, and it lasted about 400 years. The vikings were farming in Greenland where it has been permafrost ever since about 1200 AD. He has corrupted the data to flaten out that part of the "hockey stick", because he can't explain why it was hotter then than it is now, when it is supposed to be "hotter than it ever has been". The father of this hypothesis of certain gasses produced by man's activities, Roger Revelle, started studying it in 1955, and in the later '60s concluded that man's impact on the climate was minimal, and trying to control these gasses would cause more harm to the earth's population than any possible benifit gained. I've seen an interview with a researcher who could not make graphs of CO2 levels and global temperature correlate. He tampered with the data by using a formula with an exponent to force them to get the results he wanted. That is absolute fraud!!! If the data does not support the hypothesis, then you change the hypothesis, not the data. The researcher in Colorado who the Sierra club quotes, who used tree rings to support the hypothesis of run-away global warming, told his assistant that if any samples don't support the hypothesis to discard them. You can't pick and choose your data like that. The "Man-Made Climate Change" crowd are the blind sheep who believe in fairy-tales. Read the origional reports like I did, and brush up on your math and science (I was getting a degree that included math, geology, physics, and chemistry at the time) I went from thinking that man's activities could be changing the climate to being convinced that it can't.
sc.surveyor Wrote: Nov 13, 2013 3:46 PM
"Would a "Science Avenger" allow any "scientist" or coalition of scientists to state with authority that the science is settled on any theory?"

Perfect!
Science Avenger Wrote: Nov 13, 2013 3:24 PM
If you think "scientific consensus" is an oxymoron, you don't understand science. They are reached all the time when the evidence becomes so overwhelming on a subject that no reasonable person could object with evidence. That's the key - it has to do with evidence, not votes. This has been the case with evolution for quite some time, as with plate tectonics, a relative newcomer. It is also becoming so with climate change.
Science Avenger Wrote: Nov 13, 2013 3:17 PM
The irony is rich here, since it's those who are charging the issue politically who are complaining about it being so charged.

The scientists have spoken more loudly and uniformly with every passing year that the AGW theory is indeed reality. In most parts of the world, they have moved on to dealing with its effects (melting glaciers in Asia, rising seas in the Pacific, changing weather patterns in Afirca and Australia).
Jon315 Wrote: Nov 13, 2013 2:40 PM
Your post underscores my skepticism.

"Peer-reviewed" means little when these peers comprise a "scientific consensus" (an oxymoron). These peers might even be inclined to suppress dissenting opinions.

Your example scientist includes an exhaustive list of qualifications - for an AGW apologist. (Well, of course, he has written books and papers.)

Is honesty important, here? I believe that using the "denier" label is a dishonest tactic. (BTW, I do not "deny" the Holocaust.)

You then present me with a conditional statement (and question) that is reminiscent of Pascal's Wager. (The stakes, here, are just too high for you not to...)
liberalpride Wrote: Nov 13, 2013 1:52 PM
There are so many true scientists who are well-respected, honest and thorough and honest with their research. Just one is Michael Mann - (PSU)
" Distinguished Professor of Meteorology
Joint Appointment with the Department of Geosciences
Director, Earth System Science Center".
"Dr. Michael E. Mann received his undergraduate degrees in Physics and Applied Math from the University of California at Berkeley, an M.S. degree in Physics from Yale University, and a Ph.D. in Geology & Geophysics from Yale University." "He made Bloomberg News' list of fifty most influential people in 2013. He is a Fellow of both the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society. Dr. Mann is author of more than 160 peer-reviewed and edited publications, and has published two books including Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming in 2008 and The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines in 2012. He is also a co-founder and avid contributor to the award-winning science website RealClimate.org." And that is just a small amount of his qualifications. If you who are "climate deniers" are wrong - and you are - then you are responsible for the devastation of this Earth in the future. Want to take that chance???