Global Warming

[Gods_Mercenary]

That's the Bush administration acknowleging that the earth is warming. duh! it's been doing that for a while. We're talking about whether humans affect it

[Epistemologist]

We should also consider that correlations e.g. rise in use of fossil fuels and rise in global temperatures are not necessarily causations. We should do relatively unbiased tests to find out if there are causations.

[Chancellor]

To quote the made-for-television movie Category 6, "Global warming is an unproven theory."

While certainly not an authoritative source...

Letters of Marque: Global Warming: Theory and Fact

[Epistemologist]

To quote the made-for-television movie Category 6, "Global warming is an unproven theory."

While certainly not an authoritative source...

Letters of Marque: Global Warming: Theory and Fact

That's good, since they mentioned changes of means and correlations that exist. They also explain that these claimed causations aren't sufficiently proven. Actually, many studies claim causations, although I'm not sure how many of them fail to consider confounding variables.

[Pooeypants]

That's good, since they mentioned changes of means and correlations that exist. They also explain that these claimed causations aren't sufficiently proven. Actually, many studies claim causations, although I'm not sure how many of them fail to consider confounding variables.

If you can correct them, then please do so. I mean really, get their report and tear apart. If you can't, then what are you complaining about? Seriously though, do any of you here actually believe that without a degree in some Meteorology related discipline, that you're actually qualified to make an assessment on these reports? I mean, would you doubt the diagnosis of a doctor? Perhaps, but what if a whole hospital of doctors gave the same diagnosis result?

[Epistemologist]

If you can correct them, then please do so. I mean really, get their report and tear apart. If you can't, then what are you complaining about?

I'm just cautiously mentioning a general problem with many of these studies so people who believe whatever they're told will think twice the next time they hear something. What's your problem? :rolleyes:

[Pooeypants]

I'm just cautiously mentioning a general problem with many of these studies so people who believe whatever they're told will think twice the next time they hear something. What's your problem? :rolleyes:

I'm just sick of people who think they know more than an entire organisation dedicated to studying weather and climate, or science on a whole for that matter. I'm all for doubting, it's what science is all about, without it there is no progress but the criticism must be founded on good reasoning. All I see are layman's making a few points about "variables not accounted for blah blah", yet without any specifics. Why? Because a lot of them just don't know, they just read on sites that gave anecdotal evidence yet they still take that over peer reviewed published papers.

[Gods_Mercenary]

But wouldn't an organisation such as that have an obvious bias towards the finding correct of the theory of global warming? Any scientist who denies the theory is probably subject to a career of recieving grants from no one but the oil companies. I'm not suggesting that they are outright wrong.That would be arrogant, just that we should treat theories and people with much more skepticism as to their motives.

[Epistemologist]

I'm just sick of people who think they know more than an entire organisation dedicated to studying weather and climate, or science on a whole for that matter. I'm all for doubting, it's what science is all about, without it there is no progress but the criticism must be founded on good reasoning. All I see are layman's making a few points about "variables not accounted for blah blah", yet without any specifics. Why? Because a lot of them just don't know, they just read on sites that gave anecdotal evidence yet they still take that over peer reviewed published papers.

Unfortunately, doubt is necessary for a field that has experienced so many cheats and biased findings. We shouldn't automatically reject it, if that's the source of your frustration, but we should be cautious.

[Matt W]

But wouldn't an organisation such as that have an obvious bias towards the finding correct of the theory of global warming? Any scientist who denies the theory is probably subject to a career of recieving grants from no one but the oil companies. I'm not suggesting that they are outright wrong.That would be arrogant, just that we should treat theories and people with much more skepticism as to their motives.

If you can disprove their science, then please do so. As has been stated before, scientific 'theories' are based on cold, hard facts.

[Pooeypants]

But wouldn't an organisation such as that have an obvious bias towards the finding correct of the theory of global warming? Any scientist who denies the theory is probably subject to a career of recieving grants from no one but the oil companies. I'm not suggesting that they are outright wrong.That would be arrogant, just that we should treat theories and people with much more skepticism as to their motives.

I'm not talking one organisation, but many, many independent of each other.
Contemporary scientific literature are submitted with a disclaimer that there are no commercial conflicts of interests.
And if all of this was a fraud, wouldn't someone have leaked it by now? I mean, we're talking hundreds of thousands of people involved in the scientific community, you're trying to tell me they're all in on some conspiracy?
But you've hit a nail there, why is it that the Global Warming skeptics are funded by Oil Companies and Motor manufacturers? Doesn't that put your suspicion on them?

[Gods_Mercenary]

If you can disprove their science, then please do so. As has been stated before, scientific 'theories' are based on cold, hard facts.

I can't disprove their science, but I haven't seen any tests to even justify it's being called a theory. How can you test this theory without a model with as many variables as the Earth?