Global Warming?

[toppop52]

In 1491, many scientists thought the earth was flat. Turns out they were wrong. Does the fact that some of them were wrong in the past invalidate the science that has followed?

Science is full of theories and explanations that turn out to be wrong or only partially correct. It is an iterative process and new data or knowledge changes our understanding. I doubt that many of the climate scientists who were concerned about cooling have failed to review additional data and understand they were wrong. I also don't think that idea was terribly well accepted by the larger climate science community as there were no great international conventions to seek practical solutions to the problem. Most likely a "flash in the pan" theory that was soon discarded. In contrast, we have now seen decades of scientific work which points to AGW and the vast majority of climate scientists agree the evidence is now overwhelming. Skepticism is a valid part of science but demands a logical and data driven argument. Pointing out that a few scientists over hyped an incorrect theory forty years ago is not valid skepticism. It is cherry picking of data which is a common tactic of deniers and such distortion doesn't stand up at all to the mass of data and understanding that has been gained since that time.

That doesn't change the fact the earth was cooling then, much as it's warming now, but the hydrocarbons and upper atmosphere content of gasses such as R-12 were much higher then. Whether their theory was right or wrong based in the same info today's theorists use is a perfectly valid argument. The fact they were wrong using the same basic data but with dirtier air means something, could it be the more polluted air actually caused cooling? Once we started the clean up it warmed up? You all argue based too much on a tunnel vision toward what you want it to be vs what it may encompass, thereby leaving out so much valuable information that may show us a lot more than grandma's coal stove is to blame.

 

[tcreeley]

Bombastic deniers, a coven of holy grailers...
Now they would have us see
From the tip of our nose to the
shadowy and fluttering lash. ..Oh such
discernment, such embrace of so much, it is a beauty of vision, this lightweight flake of
truth on the cheek,
How can we adherents but depart from out heated words, to join up to the deniers - to extol their
merciless derision
and their treatment of the need for a DairyQueen treat!

 

[madmax12]

Bombastic deniers, a coven of holy grailers...
Now they would have us see
From the tip of our nose to the
shadowy and fluttering lash. ..Oh such
discernment, such embrace of so much, it is a beauty of vision, this lightweight flake of
truth on the cheek,
How can we adherents but depart from out heated words, to join up to the deniers - to extol their
merciless derision
and their treatment of the need for a DairyQueen treat!

?:laughing:? ...so, your buying ice cream... right?

Cool.

 

[/pine]

Bombastic deniers, a coven of holy grailers...

And just how would you describe the highly gullible (AGW) advocates that put all their faith in the "...ignorance of experts" ? huh?

 

[IslandTractor]

And just how would you describe the highly gullible (AGW) advocates that put all their faith in the "...the ignorance of experts" ? huh?

Slash, it is laughable that you continue to think Feynman's quote was anti science. You must have gotten an A in miscomprehension in high school.

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. " Is not an anti-science stance. You on the other hand are clearly more interested in politics than science and would happily ignore science that doesn't fit your world view.

 

[/pine]

Slash, it is laughable that you continue to think Feynman's quote was anti science. You must have gotten an A in miscomprehension in high school.

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. " Is not an anti-science stance. You on the other hand are clearly more interested in politics than science and would happily ignore science that doesn't fit your world view.

you are obviously clueless on the subject (cited)...and obviously can't discern the difference between science and the opinions of scientists...

And you are clearly more interested in attempting to pontificate your own opinions with blather and drivel....

 

[/pine]

@ robert Brown....???

why did you delete your post?

did you figure it out and embarrassment get to you?:laughing:

 

[RobertBrown]

Re: @ robert Brown....???

why did you delete your post?

did you figure it out and embarrassment get to you?:laughing:

OOPS! WRONG AGAIN!

 

[/pine]

Re: @ robert Brown....???

OOPS! WRONG AGAIN!

So why did you delete it then ?

why answer a viable question with an admonishment ?

 

[RobertBrown]

Re: @ robert Brown....???

So why did you delete it then ?

I'm using a mobile device, the editing is very tempermental and I'm short on time.

why answer a viable question with an admonishment ?

Because it amuses me.....