The scientific consensus on global warming

Remove all ads!

The IPCC's charter is founded on human induced climate change -- it gets it's money supporting that charter. They are not unbiased in this; if they were to ever come out and say that there was a high likelihood the climate change was NOT human induced they would all be out of jobs. I would think an impartial group would give a higher level than 5% chance. Unfortunately, I don't think there are any unbiased groups.

And I doubt it is a hoax, just not well understood.

 

T2,
according to your criteria your doctor is biased when he diagnoses cancer in your brain -- and transparently so, after all he has an interest to continue making a buck by treating you, and we all know how expensive such treatment is. No ill people, no business. So when he tells you that you're ill, he probably at least distorts the truth!

That headache your feeling, it's nothing. Take an aspirn. Everything will be fine.

I don't quite know why I post this, but there must be a reason Right. The cartoon is biased

 

Well let me tell you how great it is that you undestand the issue better than the vast majority of scientists specialized in the area. But they are probably biased hippies anyway who are just trying to keep their jobs and don't really care about scientific integrity. It's good that we still have a small group of honorable of scientists who are ready to expose this conspiracy created by these PETA-loving hippies.

 

Uh oh, Morgoroth -- did I question the unpartiality of your experts? How thoughtless of me to give you such a blatant slap on the face. Perhaps I should just believe everything I read in the paper. While I'm at it I'll just believe every govenment agency has my well being in mind -- especially all agencies of the United Nations.

Give me a break. I believe everyone should question findings of any organization. In doing so a person should also understand where the money for the organization is coming from and why it exists. Everyone and every organization is biased. In order to cut through the BS a person needs to understand the bias and take that into account when researching a topic. To blindly follow the IPCC is like blindly following any organization (Republican Party, PETA, Vatican, etc.).

Oh yes, even the experts in climatology will admit there still is a lot to learn about the entire situation. In other words: they don't have a complete understanding of the issue yet. That is quite normal in science.

Ragusa: Important difference here: a doctor can be sued for misdiagnosis. There have been many cases where doctors have done EXACTLY what you are using as a retort. Many doctors have patients take tests using new equipment that was bought -- not because the patient needs the test, but because the doctor wants to ensure the investment pays off. The same is true of any business or organization.

 

Yes well you need to draw the line somewhere. The subject is not completely understood which I would agree with but the knowledge is growing and the evidence towards man influencing global warming is growing too. Questioning and being sceptical is fine but when you're against the vast majority of the world's experts in this area you are questioning quite incredible odds. It's of course possible that these are wrong but what would be costs if they were? We'd feel a bit stupid for cutting down our production a bit sure, but what are the risks if we don't take the steps and just continue to wait for complete agreement within the scientific community (which might never happen)? Increased risks of flooding, drought and violent storms causing great amount of deaths and famine.

So I ask you, which risk is the bigger one to take? Especially when the scientific community (who should be the ones who know most about this subject) seems to be supporting man influenced global warming in great majority. In my opinion feeling a bit stupid for cutting our production down a bit is the lesser of these too evils.

 

T2,
the assumption you seem not to take into account is that the doctor is honest and just doing his job.

I read that just yesterday, in a different context, and it rings true to me:

No pun intended.

 

Tal, why do you hate freedom and/or America?

Are you a pinkocommieislamofascistnazi or something?

 

I hesitate to ask, yet I cant help but wonder what this individual thinks Freedom has to do with Climate change...
Or, for that matter whether 'commie' and 'nazi' can be applied as a single title?

 

Fair Enough.

 

I don't completely understand much of this, but is a cycle with diameter growing and shrinking and with height doing the opposite for as far back as studies can really show. Not that this is anything you don't know...

Those aliens are ruining their planet too... A bit (moreso) off topic, but my place of employment is sending some stuff on that Phoenix Mars lander to the 'cap of Mars.

[ April 06, 2007, 10:14: Message edited by: ChickenIsGood ]

 

In researching something else I ran across this web page

I am not putting it forward as in anyway definitive but simply as one more study and opinion.

 

I have been looking at topic a lot lately and I have yet to find a noted scientist that is firmly in one side or the other. All the top scientists (i.e., Nobel prize winners, Priestly medal receipients, etc.) seem to be planted firmly on the side of "this needs more research in order to determine a cause."

And I've even been using that wonderous invention of Gore -- the internet.

I choose not to take any organization at face value --I strongly feel that people should also research the issue and draw their own conclusions. Everyone has an agenda (it may be a good agenda, but it's still there).

Oh yes, Ragusa, I don't trust doctors. I haven't since I taught pre-med students and found out just how self-centered and dishonest they could be -- most of those went to med school. A doctor should always be questioned -- I have found that most doctors are interested in increasing their wealth and protecting themselves from law suits. Those few that have integrity are worth whatever they charge.

 

For the record, Gore never said he invented the internet. He said he was instrumental in creating it...which he did by, uh, funding it. His exact words (which came from an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN's "Late Edition") were "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system." You can thank Rush Limbaugh for twisting his words and creating that little urban legend.

Regarding scientists who say it needs more research...of course they do. They say that about evolution, too....and the idea that global warming is caused by humans carries a stronger consensus than the theory of evolution.

 

Does the fact that there's no consensus on global warming really mean that we shouldn't take every little initiative possible to reduce the consumption of resources and the generation of pollutants? Some of you seem to be implying as much.

 

Uh, there is a consensus. One of the largest consensuses the scientific community has ever reached, in fact.