Posted: Jul 15, 2010 12:44 am
Leonidas wrote:Let's face it I could link to articles to back up what I say but:
1. Most of them are opinion pieces, just like the opinion pieces of so many who accept the case for man-made Global Warming.
Except that I can present peer-reviewed science while you - as you so correctly point out - couldn't. In fact, if you look at some of the links I provided above, you will find such peer-reviewed science articles.
Leonidas wrote:
2. The usual response to any scientific piece which does not accept man-made global warming is (not from everybody but it is very common) an ad-hominem attack on the scientist on the grounds of 'big oil' etc etc.
No, the usual first response is a skeptical approach to the finding, especially if it contradicts the main body of science. As has been the case with every single denialist paper, it's normally very well deserved skepticism, and the reason the "science" presented by denialists is so bad is because 1, they are creating "science" that fits with a political agenda, and 2, they are wrong.
Leonidas wrote:
3. 'Peer-reviewed' and 'consensus' generally come up at this point.
Yes, the peer-review system, loathed by anti-science types and woo peddlers, like AGW denialists and creationists.
Leonidas wrote:
4. Nobody changes their view.
Wrong. Scientists change their view all the time as new evidence comes in. That's what most denialists don't get. Science is about the evidence, not about politics.
Leonidas wrote:
I am not going to post any links.
I never expected you to.
Leonidas wrote:
I have read pieces that dispute that CO2 has any more than a minor effect on world temperature, that point out that increased CO2 is a consequence of warming not a cause of it and that warming and cooling coincide with output from the sun including its impact on cloud formation. I have also read pieces that say that even if every single factory on the planet was shut down for decades it would have only a trivial effect on world temperature.
And I'm sure those opinion pieces were terribly convincing to you, mainly because they told you what you wanted to hear. I wish I could just tune out everything I didn't want to hear, but then again, I live in the real world, where bad things happen.
Leonidas wrote:
What is the truth?
The best science can give us is a theory, and that's the theory of AGW. It holds up to predictions and is based on solid science.
Leonidas wrote:
The truth is that predictions of next weeks weather are very uncertain and next year's climate even more so.
You shouldn't mix up weather and climate. You seem to be at a grade-school level in your understanding of climate science.
Leonidas wrote:
Climate and Weather predictions more than a few days ahead have a dreadful record of accuracy.
Climate predictions are fairly good, actually. Weather predictions I tend to agree on to an extent, but only because of my rained-in picnic. Then again, meteorology and climatology are very different things.
Leonidas wrote:
All some scientists and weather men seem to do is take a nice looking graph and extend it off into the future as if a trend, any trend, will continue for ever.
I take it you've never actually met a scientist.
Leonidas wrote:
And then there is the alarmist fringe: We are all doomed, we will all be flooded many feet deep, the sky is falling, all disasters are due to global warming and it is going to get worse. This is what I call tabloid science. It smells strongly and it's getting smellier.
If you could bring up an example we could discuss it. You seem to be a very angry person, and I'd like to help alleviate some of that anger by explaining to you how you are wrong to disregard an entire field of science simply because it contradicts your political stance.