Scientific Fraud

[bcollins]

The problem with 'Climategate' explained by a scientist (whom, before you have a stroke eventually ended up doing his own studies on Climate Change and he thinks it's the real deal...only after having done his OWN research into the matter).



So there it is laid out as a scientist would lay it out no? He's a scientist, he looked at the data, he disagreed with it, and thought Michael Mann et al pulled some very shady shit....but it's "propaganda"?



Guys like Freeman Dyson, he's no dummy....he thinks CO2 is causing for greater crop yields and a greening of Earth and thinks climate change is no big deal....is he wrong about that?

Piers Corbyn thinks the ocean temperatures are driving things and not man.

Muller's early reasoning for his skepticism was roundly rejected by his colleagues. Freeman Dyson is absolutely brilliant, yet he is not a climate scientist. Piers Corbyn isn't even a scientist, or an amateur scientist, at best.

And there are others out there who are saying yes there's fluctuation but not anything out of the ordinary or they don't take water vapor into account or "there was a pause in warming for about 20 years" and then people disagree with that too.

And in science, it is easy to "say" something. It's much more difficult to present solid evidence that is accepted by peers. These sound like hypotheses that have yet to be supported by evidence.

And to put this in perspective, in the 1970's everything was Global COOLING, then it was Global WARMING, and now we have the catch all Climate Change.....so do you understand why someone might be skeptical about people "fine tuning the data"?? It's a boy who cried wolf scenario and I'm not answering the call anymore...I'm just 1 person...my carbon footprint is a fuck ton smaller than any of these politicians who want more control over me and it's plenty smaller than the media who are telling me not to have kids.....so pardon me if I'm not thrilled about anything they are attempting to do.

Ah - that old chestnut again. A few magazine articles post a few headlines and you say the scientific community said these things? Try again. There were no peer-reviewed papers supporting that contention in the 70's, much less a global consensus as there is now. You're using the media to support your claim again - something you say is bad to do.

Now that said, I understand that it's not a black and white either it's happening and it's going to be catastrophic or it's not happening at all. I'm saying the climate changes (it's never static) but it's not due to man, man's CO2 is nothing compared to what Mother Nature does....so when politicians are attempting to keep people from driving and the media is saying "don't have kids" I get a little irked...I'm not saying dump nuclear waste into the oceans and shit where we eat I'm saying let's have a little common fucking sense about things...."don't have kids" because there's a global warming boogey man that's going to get them...HORSE SHIT and yes even when scientists are presenting GOOD FACTUAL data the politicians will use it for control and the media will use it to sell their papers.

Science disagrees with you.

The scientists may agree on a few things, but on Climate Change there are a number of things they do not agree on: is it man made, is the IPCC right in their predictions, is a natural process causing climate change, is the cause of climate change actually known, will there actually be negative impacts if the climate is changing?

And again who are we as inhabitants of the Earth to say this climate is good and that climate is not good? Whats' the scientific protocol for that? If we change the climate to suit us and kill off millions of beings (millions and millions of humans among them) are we doing that for good or for bad? If politicians DO attempt to "fix" Anthropogenic Global Warming, I'll tell you this much, millions and millions of people will die...that's a plain simple truth and if you're alright with that fine, but it isn't going to be me or my family.

You're just wrong here, Lyle - you're believing the propaganda. Here's a link to yet another paper, from this year, that disputes that argument.

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

Highly respected, peer-reviewed journal, meta-analysis of the literature. What is your source?