Global warming?

21,000 Scientists Refute the Phony Global Warming Follies as The Biggest Attempt to Tax The World Has Even Seen.
Monday, January 28, 2008 10:46 AM
http://rycksrationalizations.townhall.com/g/c9173a36-97a1-4 108-9e7d-cdaa38b28cbf

rycK, one of the 21,000

Just found this post by John Hinderaker on Powerline:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/11/022077.php

Entitled Red-Hot October?, the revelations discussed in the article drive another nail, actually a golden spike, into the coffin of the credibility of the global warming conspiracy.

It also takes a rather large bite into the credibility of NASA, which is not at an all-time high, anyway.

Just wondering: Does willful manipulation of data gathered at Government expense, by Government employees, for political purposes constitute fraud and abuse?

I would respectfully suggest that Mr. James Hansen and any other Government employees who knowingly participated in this fraudulent and deceptive activity should be terminated and prosecuted!

On the global warming front, it seems that things are warming up, as it were!

This is the basic problem with the way you guys approach problems:

Don't bother to get any data, and assume anyone who disagrees with you is a liberal idiot. As my blog attests:

http://scienceavenger.blogspot.com/

I am a ticked off ex-Republican who is furious with the anti-science, anti-intellectualism that has taken over his former party. Your post is a perfect example:

"...show me how the so-called 'consensus' on global warming can be proven through application of the scientific method. Once you can
do that, there is no longer consensus, there is irrefutable proof. Surely, as a 'scientist,' you are familiar with the scientific method."

I am. You aren't. Scientific consensus is not reached by a vote.
Science is done through falsifiable, experimental testing of hypotheses, writing up results, and submitting them to scentific journals for peer review and publication. This is then refined or challenged by other researchers, and slowly a consensus is built.

It is not done though rhetorical debate, nor in blog comments, nor
does it deal with "irrefutable proof". That comment alone reveals
you as completely ignorant of how science works.

This process has produced the scientific consensus on global
warming, documented here:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/13/221250/49

If you choose to go read the source material, be my guest. But then if you were really interested in data, you'd have gone and looked at it already instead of posturing like a child demanding to be spoon fed information. Parading your ignorance and demanding others fix it for you is no virtue.

These rhetorical tactics of the AGW denialist movement mirror exactly those of the evolution denialist movement, and in many cases, involves the same people. And they too, will be marginalized in time, as the data continues to pile up. I just hope the GOP sheds that baggage of stupidity and gets back to being the party of sound fiscal policy, responsible social policy, and strong science to back both.

Well, sir, you are right about one thing: I did assume that you are a liberal idiot, but it was only because you averred that it is stupid to deny global warming. I tend to group people who make those kind of statements with Al Gore. For that, I apologize.

I am not anti-intellectual, I am certainly not anti-science, and I may not be as ignorant as you think. I am very much suspicious of those self-proclaimed intellectuals (see Al Gore) who use anything they can find, including evolving science, to impose their political will on the rest of us.

I am familiar enough with the scientific method to know that "consensus" is an interim step in an evolving process, and that the consensus can change over time. I think it is not legitimate to declare that global warming is "undeniable" until one has the facts to prove otherwise (i.e., when the science being investigated yields provable results).

You got one other thing right: I am not interested in reading a lot of data about this subject. I am only interested in the results. As you say "Science is done through falsifiable, experimental testing of hypotheses, writing up results, and submitting them to scentific journals for peer review and publication. This is then refined or challenged by other researchers, and slowly a consensus is built." I just happen to believe that until your consensus is so overwhelming that it leaves no alternative, you can't just say that it is "stupid" to deny global warming.

My suspicions are heightened, I am afraid, by the revelation of falsified data from James Hansen and GSFC. I worked for NASA for 24 years and am deeply ashamed of their actions, and wonder how much other bad data has been used (by both sides).

Thanks for coming over, and for being civil in your comments. Your big concern, since you think so little of me, is that we are a lot more alike than we are different.