- This topic has 5 voices and 105 replies.
-
Posts
-
All this stuff reminds me the time when Darwin published his book On the Origin of Species establishing evolutionary descent.BTW, where does the concept of intelligent design come from??
The Newtonian Deists.That is besides the point about GW. the science is not settled, that is the nature of science. These GW clowns are conspiring to throttle dissent, see below on what I think about that; it also applies to Darwinism(I accept evolution by the way). If they have nothing to hide why are the GW supporters so shrill in shouting down so-called “skeptics”?
That assumes that GW is actually occurring. I would argue that while it may be happening, the jury is and should still be out. To me that biggest thing that proves there are huge problems with the theory is that it's supporters are so vociferous in slandering the theory's opponents. One would think that if their science was as airtight as they want us to believe they would welcome dissent as an opportunity to both prove how strong their theory is and how weak the dissent really is. That is not what has happened, instead “deniers” as they call them are ridiculed and they attempt to marginalize them. But for some reason, the skeptics seem to have the theory that is withstanding scrutiny.
Confusing Science with religion? All assessments made by these scientists about GW can be proved, demonstrated and … challenged scientifically ! That hacking is a good point: it can lead to a contradictorily debate !
Confusing Science with religion?
No. It's replacing the worship God with the worship of science.
All assessments made by these scientists about GW can be proved, demonstrated
I disagree. These leaked emails showed that the theory of AGW has been manipulated (not proven) by so-called scientists.
Ski, once again you took the words off my keyboard. The wife and I went for a walk and when I get back you have beaten me to it.
…. and … challenged scientifically ! That hacking is a good point: it can lead to a contradictorily debate !
My emphasis… both points are otherwise lost in a science v. religion debate that really isn't the point at all(MHO)
We will see how this plays out. I am guessing that any cooking of the books will get lost in gleeful recriminations from both sides and GW will continue it's steady march except among loonys like me(at least that is the media's discourse about skeptics).
My emphasis… both points are otherwise lost in a science v. religion debate that really isn't the point at all(MHO)
Quite true; the main issue is not really about science v. religion (the side point that I brought up regarding the larger philosophical battle pertains to what people put their faith in – either organized religion or “green” spirituality that is based on a specific set of moral values). I think the immediate issue is the veracity of scientific claims, especially those which are thoroughly mixed with serious political ramifications.
I think the immediate issue is the veracity of scientific claims, especially those which are thoroughly mixed with serious political ramifications.
I am guessing that any cooking of the books will get lost in gleeful recriminations from both sides and GW will continue it's steady march except among loonys like me(at least that is the media's discourse about skeptics).
This, of course, is the story in a nutshell; there is some weak science on both sides but seems to me the better science always gets drowned out by the appeal to emotions that bubble around the end of the earth as we know it scenarios of GW. seriously flawed science that scares the crap out of us will always get more attention than the idea things aren't totally out of control and we could have a very positive impact if we tried some things… the things in question aren't the really sexy, green things that Gore et al can use to drive their political agenda (read they are practical and often cheap), so it's fingers in the ears: La, la, la, la….The other point is that what ever we do… any interaction with the natural world has both positive and negative feedbacks. We need to maximize the former while minimizing (or altogether avoiding) the latter. This is why the third theme of geography is interaction… I call it how we play the cards Mother Nature dealt and the results thereof.
Here is a pretty good editorial from the Detroit News that makes the same point I have about how this will get covered in the wider news. 'Climategate' puts warming in question. This will get ignored in the wider media because they have figured out that if they ignore issues they don't like they will go away despite the blogosphere. Even with the internet it takes some effort to find and read news the major producers don't want us to see. If ABC, NBC, CNN, BBC, SKY, CBS, and the other big channels dont cover this it will die away. There has been nothing about this on German TV or in the Big German papers I read. If nobody knows nobody will care. Regardless of whether it is contrived junk science or not the masses will continue to believe and have faith in GW as long as the media pushes the line that it is true and going to destroy their lives and the earth.
Here is another news update coutesy of Drudge who put it on his front page. Scientist in climate change 'cover-up' storm told to quit. You know what is funny is that it only seems to be British papers covering this story.
There has been nothing about this on German TV or in the Big German papers I read.
Interesting how it's not covered in Germany. I know it's getting some press in Britain, and I get most of my news through Drudge anyway so I've read a lot about it that way. I wonder how the rest of Europe is treating the story.
Is it getting covered by any American network but Fox? If it is not that just reinforces what some people have been saying anyway.
No. I've been watching CBS news all week and nothing at all was mentioned. Saw an article on CNN, but it took the sides of AGW apologists who said the emails were taken out of context.
