On Sun, 13 Jan 2013, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
On 12/01/2013 8:24 PM, Craig Sanders wrote:
which I personally and strongly believe to be false.
the trouble with faith-based reality is not only that wearing blinders a fucking stupid thing to do, it's also flat out wrong - and easily proved so.
It's not just faith based; there is debate, even between those with significant scientific background.
Can you cite some examples of people who have done real research and support your side? I don't mean geologists who comment on atmospheric science either.
I expect that both sides misrepresent the facts to suit their arguments (including or excluding data to suit).
In disagreements between scientists falsifying data is one thing that is generally not done. The quickest way of ending a scientific career is to falsify data. Conclusions that are drawn from data often differ, but the data is published and it's not uncommon for other analysis to be performed - sometimes such analysis is done decades after the original research was published.
Just the same, both sides still argue -- and I am not talking about lay people whom have no idea as to the truth or otherwise of the presented facts (no matter how much political and/or media hype is involved), but arguments by those in the scientific community itself.
Again if you want to convince anyone you could cite references to the scientists on your side of the debate who are arguing about such things.
Many here take the view of the apparent majority of scientists to be fact, that's okay. Clearly, I don't. As I've said before some of those scientists have their own agendas. Some of my views comes from the real plausibility of the video documentary about the "global warming swindle" [1]. In the said documentary, scientists had trouble getting their names removed from the IPCC report [2].
The premise of that "documentary" is that wealthy environmentalist groups are spending huge amounts of money to corrupt the scientific process and poor multi-national corporations that want to keep on producing huge amounts of CO2 are unable to compete on the propaganda front. Anyone who considers the matter will realise that environmental groups just don't have the sort of money needed to corrupt anyone. People who are corrupt and want a payout will go to the corporations that have billions to spend. If you are concerned about bribary and corruption then you should consider who has the ability to pay as the list of potential suspects.
The list of names included in the IPCC report included many non-scientists just to make up the numbers. It was asserted in the documentary that those scientists wanting to be removed had to make legal threats to ensure their names were not associated with the affirmation and false assertions of the document.
That's an interesting claim, do they have names for those scientists so we can try to verify it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Swindle The Wikipedia page notes that the "documentary" in question has misrepresented two scientists. So they seem very hypocritical.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ#t=2m20s -- listen to at least 6 minutes in, better to see the entire program though.
-- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/