The State of the Climate—and of Climate Science

[_Simpson_ 250]

I think Looking Up missed this nugget of truth...

The reality of science is that a scientific career is made by showing that all the people around you believe something that's not true. If a scientist could provide evidence that the climate theory is incorrect and that global warming is not a product of human activities, he or she would be held up as the Darwin or the Einstein of climate science. We're highly incentivized to show that all our colleagues are wrong. If we could come up with good evidence that they're wrong, we would be out there publishing it. The evidence just doesn't exist.

Evidence doesn't exist either way but its more profitable to be on the global warming band wagon side of things, its big business these days.

Just curious....what's your stance on the Theory of Evolution?

I know im walking into a trap here but Ill bite, I subscribe to it.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think Looking Up missed this nugget of truth...

The reality of science is that a scientific career is made by showing that all the people around you believe something that's not true. If a scientist could provide evidence that the climate theory is incorrect and that global warming is not a product of human activities, he or she would be held up as the Darwin or the Einstein of climate science. We're highly incentivized to show that all our colleagues are wrong. If we could come up with good evidence that they're wrong, we would be out there publishing it. The evidence just doesn't exist.

Evidence doesn't exist either way but its more profitable to be on the global warming band wagon side of things, its big business these days.

Just curious....what's your stance on the Theory of Evolution?

I know im walking into a trap here but Ill bite, I subscribe to it.

lol...no trap at all. I was just curious because those two theories seem to cause a lot of controversy compared to other scientific theories.

As far as evidence regarding Global Warming, you are simply wrong.

The evidence is clear and overwhelming...and it doesn't require a science degree to connect the dots. CO2 in the atmosphere has increased dramatically over the last century and we know that burning fossil fuels pumps an enormous amount of CO2 into the atmosphere.

I've heard people either dismiss that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, or that the earth's temperature isn't rising, or that other culprits are producing greenhouse gases. I have yet to see anyone effectively prove all those climate scientist's are wrong and they can't because those fundamental facts I just mentioned are indisputable.

[The_Dude 1,142]

The problem I see between the two sides here is the scope of the evidence. Skeptics want to see physical evidence that is obvious to everyone, whereas the evidence that is being presented is more theoretical and analytical. As was pointed out, Climate is long term. It's not like predicting this winter's snowstorms. There is a lot of extrapolation involved which by a skeptics definition isn't evidence at all, rather they see it as either opinion or conjecture.

Despite whether you believe in it or not, can't we all just agree that the measures proposed to curb it are good in general? If nothing else, the current practices and standards are inefficient which I know conservatives hate

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

I think Looking Up missed this nugget of truth...

The reality of science is that a scientific career is made by showing that all the people around you believe something that's not true. If a scientist could provide evidence that the climate theory is incorrect and that global warming is not a product of human activities, he or she would be held up as the Darwin or the Einstein of climate science. We're highly incentivized to show that all our colleagues are wrong. If we could come up with good evidence that they're wrong, we would be out there publishing it. The evidence just doesn't exist.

Evidence doesn't exist either way but its more profitable to be on the global warming band wagon side of things, its big business these days.

Al Gore selling carbon credits is just a coincidence.

[_Simpson_ 250]

I think Looking Up missed this nugget of truth...

The reality of science is that a scientific career is made by showing that all the people around you believe something that's not true. If a scientist could provide evidence that the climate theory is incorrect and that global warming is not a product of human activities, he or she would be held up as the Darwin or the Einstein of climate science. We're highly incentivized to show that all our colleagues are wrong. If we could come up with good evidence that they're wrong, we would be out there publishing it. The evidence just doesn't exist.

Evidence doesn't exist either way but its more profitable to be on the global warming band wagon side of things, its big business these days.

Just curious....what's your stance on the Theory of Evolution?

I know im walking into a trap here but Ill bite, I subscribe to it.

lol...no trap at all. I was just curious because those two theories seem to cause a lot of controversy compared to other scientific theories.

As far as evidence regarding Global Warming, you are simply wrong.

The evidence is clear and overwhelming...and it doesn't require a science degree to connect the dots. CO2 in the atmosphere has increased dramatically over the last century and we know that burning fossil fuels pumps an enormous amount of CO2 into the atmosphere.

I've heard people either dismiss that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, or that the earth's temperature isn't rising, or that other culprits are producing greenhouse gases. I have yet to see anyone effectively prove all those climate scientist's are wrong and they can't because those fundamental facts I just mentioned are indisputable.

The evidence about CO2 is there but the impact humans have on the earth in this manner is questionable. I will admit I need to do my homework on this subject. I have stayed out of these debates because I know there is alot I need to look into. I somehow just couldnt help myself when I seen this post earlier, I just wish they would of talked to scientist with opposing views.

[Peikko 1,575]

That's it in a nutshell. Those who are skeptical simply can't stand Al Gore so no amount of evidence will convince them that this is not some huge librul scam to get the money of the Republicans...or some other equally stupid scenario.

[HAL 9000 96]

I think Looking Up missed this nugget of truth...

The reality of science is that a scientific career is made by showing that all the people around you believe something that's not true. If a scientist could provide evidence that the climate theory is incorrect and that global warming is not a product of human activities, he or she would be held up as the Darwin or the Einstein of climate science. We're highly incentivized to show that all our colleagues are wrong. If we could come up with good evidence that they're wrong, we would be out there publishing it. The evidence just doesn't exist.

Evidence doesn't exist either way but its more profitable to be on the global warming band wagon side of things, its big business these days.

Just curious....what's your stance on the Theory of Evolution?

I know im walking into a trap here but Ill bite, I subscribe to it.

lol...no trap at all. I was just curious because those two theories seem to cause a lot of controversy compared to other scientific theories.

As far as evidence regarding Global Warming, you are simply wrong.

The evidence is clear and overwhelming...and it doesn't require a science degree to connect the dots. CO2 in the atmosphere has increased dramatically over the last century and we know that burning fossil fuels pumps an enormous amount of CO2 into the atmosphere.

I've heard people either dismiss that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, or that the earth's temperature isn't rising, or that other culprits are producing greenhouse gases. I have yet to see anyone effectively prove all those climate scientist's are wrong and they can't because those fundamental facts I just mentioned are indisputable.

The evidence about CO2 is there but the impact humans have on the earth in this manner is questionable. I will admit I need to do my homework on this subject. I have stayed out of these debates because I know there is alot I need to look into. I somehow just couldnt help myself when I seen this post earlier, I just wish they would of talked to scientist with opposing views.

They could do that. And that would not add much pending the global scientific consensus on the matter... but it could lighten up a few good discussions about the evidence and the science itself... thereby potentially strengthening the consensus itself.

[_Simpson_ 250]

They could do that. And that would not add much pending the global scientific consensus on the matter... but it could lighten up a few good discussions about the evidence and the science itself... thereby potentially strengthening the consensus itself.

or possibly weakening it

[HAL 9000 96]

They could do that. And that would not add much pending the global scientific consensus on the matter... but it could lighten up a few good discussions about the evidence and the science itself... thereby potentially strengthening the consensus itself.

or possibly weakening it

Sure- unless you think scientifically... consensus is built and modified. That's what makes science dynamic. And right now- the data points to the consensus favoring the consensus view.

[_Simpson_ 250]

They could do that. And that would not add much pending the global scientific consensus on the matter... but it could lighten up a few good discussions about the evidence and the science itself... thereby potentially strengthening the consensus itself.

or possibly weakening it

Sure- unless you think scientifically... consensus is built and modified. That's what makes science dynamic. And right now- the data points to the consensus favoring the consensus view.

If only I knew what the opposing view about that

Edited July 9, 2009 by looking_up

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

That's it in a nutshell.

[alienlovechild 75]

Despite whether you believe in it or not, can't we all just agree that the measures proposed to curb it are good in general?

At what price, any price? There's a balance between the environment and economics. The U.S. has had pollution controls since the early 1970s but the bar is always being raised with tougher standards but you'd never know it from the media. The idea of a pristine environment is impossible with over 6 billion people on the planet.

The reality is Obama's plan is a jobs program for China which just accelerates the moving of heavy industry to countries with lax pollution controls and are non-signatories to the Kyoto Protocol. Even signers of agreement didn't meet standards unless their economies were in recession but nobody is allowed to point out the obvious.

If only I knew what the opposing view about that

There's no "opposing view" but everyone against global warming theories are just evil. It's as simple as that is if you believe all you've been told. Nevermind that no one knows (or cares) if they can terrafarm the planet to "ideal conditions". The belief is any environmentalist idea is a good one regardless of cost or political realities in the world.

[HAL 9000 96]

They could do that. And that would not add much pending the global scientific consensus on the matter... but it could lighten up a few good discussions about the evidence and the science itself... thereby potentially strengthening the consensus itself.

or possibly weakening it

Sure- unless you think scientifically... consensus is built and modified. That's what makes science dynamic. And right now- the data points to the consensus favoring the consensus view.

If only I knew what the opposing view about that

I'm sure it exists... just not in science.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I like the polite term these scientists used for GW deniers, "contrarians." It makes them sound like an occult.