Scientific evidence now points to global cooling, contrary to U.N. alarmism

[PJABBER]

Originally posted by: halfpower

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Originally posted by: halfpower

Originally posted by: PJABBER
Scientific evidence now points to global cooling, contrary to U.N. alarmism
By: Kevin Mooney
Commentary Staff Writer
The Washington Examiner
08/04/09 3:51 PM EDT

...The shift away from a cooling cycle in 1945 triggered several decades of warming that ended in 1998, according to the study....

1998 was an anomalously warm year. The warming trend did not end in 1998. See

http://www.skepticalscience.co...ng-stopped-in-1998.htm

for a detailed explanation.

Thank you for that link to Skeptical Science. While I found the opinions expressed by the site's author, John Cook, to be interesting and well organized in his attempt to refute scientific research and opinion contrary to anthropogenic climate change, I was much more interested in reading all of the critical responses on the site.

Based on the commentary of the responding posters, there seems to be a site wide consensus that the Skeptical Science site author is himself attempting to manipulate the data, the statistical analysis and the graphical representation to reach his stated "science" conclusions. He is effectively challenged on all of the questions that I bothered to read.

Does this mean that he doesn't score some points? No, but as he himself is relying on a select subset of data and flawed statistical analysis it emphasizes that there are a substantial number of advocates of pre-established positions rather than impartial researchers in the review of science. As an advocate, the site is a fine attempt, but don't think they represent scientific consensus (which they also attempt to address, to the great hilarity of the responding posters.)

I thought the responding posters there were a lot more oriented toward discovering an objective "truth" that could be confirmed by logical and scientifically valid review of data than we are experiencing on this forum. A lot of the question responses are criticisms of analytical methodology and mechanisms of statistical analysis, which I can highly appreciate.

I'll share the last responding post on the question of "Consensus" by Tiranse at 05:16 AM on 3 August, 2009 -

"So where does the Scientific Method inject "consensus" into conclusion? Consensus, by definition, is a social and political construct that has no use in real science."

Priceless.

I'd hesitate to say that cook did any statistical analysis. I tend to look at these things more as spectral analysis, and 1998 does appear to be consistent with high frequency noise. The data points in general, are randomly distributed around some kind of average.

I am probably not clear enough in my commentary above, which was meant as an overview based on the number of "Arguments" and "Commentary" that I quickly reviewed on the site.

I did not want to dwell on the cited reference here as I thought the responding posters at SC did an adequate job in expressing their reservations pro and con, as they did for most of the referenced arguments, and my own response, which could only be a synthesis, would not reach the level of theirs.

Again, thanks go to halfpower for referencing the site. While it is not an exhaustive reference I would urge interested posters here to refer to the site for their own review of the Arguments for and against ACC and I highly urge anyone doing so to delve deeply into the Argument Commentary, which I found to be enlightening in many cases.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: umbrella39
Riprorin lives...

Was thinking the exact same thing!

My Rip-O-Meter has been going nuts since he has discovered P&N after being silent so many years.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: sandorski
So much Fail. GW/CC is real and it's here. The only Politicalization of it comes from the Deniers who view it as a Left Issue, often a conspiracy against the US(for some WTF reason?). It's real, needs dealt with, and we are the primary cause.

This shouldn't have ever become a left vs. right issue.
It has however become a smart vs. stupid one.

Thankfully there are enough smart people left in the world to save it from the dummies.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I know a fair bit about science which means I know I don't know much in this field. Nevertheless the preponderance of evidence dictates the probability of us affecting the climate. What I do not know is the degree which we influence the climate, and if our mucking about is in turned influenced by other natural phenomenon.

Even so, I do know that the continued reliance on oil is a catastrophe in the making. It puts us in the position of being dependent on a very unstable region of the world which would be insignificant to us except that it holds our economic lifes blood.

My POV is that we may have a serious problem with global warming, but we definitely do with oil and other fossil fuels. China, India and other nations will want a standard of living more like ours, and that consumes vast amounts of energy and raw materials.

If politicians acted prospectively, we'd be working on this very serious problem now and in a significant way. Coming up with something which isn't carbon based would kill the climate problem, and prevent economic depression.

Seems quite unwise to wait until the 11th hour.

 

[Brigandier]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
If politicians acted prospectively, we'd be working on this very serious problem now and in a significant way. Coming up with something which isn't carbon based would kill the climate problem, and prevent economic depression.

Yes, and I hope some capitalist bastard figures it out soon so he can "save the planet" and make mad cash in the process.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy
What I find interesting is that you guys want policymakers to use single studies to base their decisions on instead of hundreds if not thousands of them. Gee, I wonder if this has anything to do with you cherry-picking science that agrees with your already held viewpoint?

I haven't read the study yet, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it does not refute the basic premise of global warming.

Well, I think saying "the globe isn't warming, it's cooling," is a basic refutation of the theory that the globe is warming.

It sure isn't, there are many factors that influence the climate, man being only one.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
...The consensus of the scientific community is that it is real... The fact of the matter is that the scientific concensus is that Global warming is real. It doesn't mattter that a bunch of scientists disagree. The scientific consensus is that global warming is real. As long as the consensus among scientists that global warming is real the science says it's real.

Galileo Galilei would disagree. Consensus does not make science, fact does. All the world's scientists could wake up tomorrow and declare the sky to be green. The consensus among scientists that the sky is green does not alter the fact that the sky is blue. The facts of "climate change" are still in debate.

Utter Fail. "Consensus" exists because of legitimacy of the evidence, not because of some nefarious reason. You are attacking for a nefarious purpose, that is to simply dismiss Facts that don't agree with your nefarious opinions.

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: sandorski
So much Fail. GW/CC is real and it's here. The only Politicalization of it comes from the Deniers who view it as a Left Issue, often a conspiracy against the US(for some WTF reason?). It's real, needs dealt with, and we are the primary cause.

This shouldn't have ever become a left vs. right issue.
It has however become a smart vs. stupid one.

Thankfully there are enough smart people left in the world to save it from the dummies.

Trying to tell yourself your side is the smart side is even worse than trying to make it political. Grow up.

 

[Sacrilege]

Originally posted by: themusgrat

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: sandorski
So much Fail. GW/CC is real and it's here. The only Politicalization of it comes from the Deniers who view it as a Left Issue, often a conspiracy against the US(for some WTF reason?). It's real, needs dealt with, and we are the primary cause.

This shouldn't have ever become a left vs. right issue.
It has however become a smart vs. stupid one.

Thankfully there are enough smart people left in the world to save it from the dummies.

Trying to tell yourself your side is the smart side is even worse than trying to make it political. Grow up.

It's this disdain for scientists and other educated people, displayed right here, that portends the decline of America.

The vast majority of people who have reviewed climatic data have come to the conclusion that man made global warming is significant.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Sacrilege

Originally posted by: themusgrat

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: sandorski
So much Fail. GW/CC is real and it's here. The only Politicalization of it comes from the Deniers who view it as a Left Issue, often a conspiracy against the US(for some WTF reason?). It's real, needs dealt with, and we are the primary cause.

This shouldn't have ever become a left vs. right issue.
It has however become a smart vs. stupid one.

Thankfully there are enough smart people left in the world to save it from the dummies.

Trying to tell yourself your side is the smart side is even worse than trying to make it political. Grow up.

It's this disdain for scientists and other educated people, displayed right here, that portends the decline of America.

The vast majority of people who have reviewed climatic data have come to the conclusion that man made global warming is significant.

My fear is that the consensus will be proven wrong in the future and that we will have cost ourselves a fortune due to our political actions. It would not be the first time. One poster in this thread used a reference to the earth being flat as a way to poke fun at the idiocy of those who do not believe humans have an effect on climate change.

Didn't the scientific community once believe the earth was indeed flat?

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Sacrilege

Originally posted by: themusgrat

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: sandorski
So much Fail. GW/CC is real and it's here. The only Politicalization of it comes from the Deniers who view it as a Left Issue, often a conspiracy against the US(for some WTF reason?). It's real, needs dealt with, and we are the primary cause.

This shouldn't have ever become a left vs. right issue.
It has however become a smart vs. stupid one.

Thankfully there are enough smart people left in the world to save it from the dummies.

Trying to tell yourself your side is the smart side is even worse than trying to make it political. Grow up.

It's this disdain for scientists and other educated people, displayed right here, that portends the decline of America.

The vast majority of people who have reviewed climatic data have come to the conclusion that man made global warming is significant.

My fear is that the consensus will be proven wrong in the future and that we will have cost ourselves a fortune due to our political actions. It would not be the first time. One poster in this thread used a reference to the earth being flat as a way to poke fun at the idiocy of those who do not believe humans have an effect on climate change.

Didn't the scientific community once believe the earth was indeed flat?

The "scientific community" once also believed that everything revolved around the Earth.

"GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL WE ARE TOTALLY RIGHT THIS TIME GUYS TRUST US WE NEVER MAKE MISTAKES!"

:roll:

Costing us trillions of dollars for something that is at best a theory, at worst a flat-out lie.

 

[themusgrat]

Ya, in the grand scheme of things, we really know very little about the way things work. Relative to absolute knowledge, we prolly know very little more now, than we did when Galileo proved that the earth was round, and that it revolved around the sun. I respect that fact that many scientists look at our contribution to CO2/ozone breaking etc., then look at global warming, and say correlation=causation, because that's often true. But not all scientists agree, and more and more are starting to question that, especially now that some are starting to think this phase of global warming is coming to an end, and global cooling will soon start. No doubt, we have an effect, just like as I said earlier, it's been proven that the farts of cows all around the world also have a marked effect.

So I don't think now is the time to be worrying about the end of the world. At the same time, we will always have a responsibility to better ourselves and always be looking for more efficient and less harmful sources of energy. And besides it's really only a matter of time before someone comes up with a viable solution to our energy problems, lots of people are working on it, so chill peeps.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Sacrilege

Originally posted by: themusgrat

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: sandorski
So much Fail. GW/CC is real and it's here. The only Politicalization of it comes from the Deniers who view it as a Left Issue, often a conspiracy against the US(for some WTF reason?). It's real, needs dealt with, and we are the primary cause.

This shouldn't have ever become a left vs. right issue.
It has however become a smart vs. stupid one.

Thankfully there are enough smart people left in the world to save it from the dummies.

Trying to tell yourself your side is the smart side is even worse than trying to make it political. Grow up.

It's this disdain for scientists and other educated people, displayed right here, that portends the decline of America.

The vast majority of people who have reviewed climatic data have come to the conclusion that man made global warming is significant.

My fear is that the consensus will be proven wrong in the future and that we will have cost ourselves a fortune due to our political actions. It would not be the first time. One poster in this thread used a reference to the earth being flat as a way to poke fun at the idiocy of those who do not believe humans have an effect on climate change.

Didn't the scientific community once believe the earth was indeed flat?

The "scientific community" once also believed that everything revolved around the Earth.

"GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL WE ARE TOTALLY RIGHT THIS TIME GUYS TRUST US WE NEVER MAKE MISTAKES!"

:roll:

Costing us trillions of dollars for something that is at best a theory, at worst a flat-out lie.

You used to shit and piss in your pants and have the IQ of a chimp so nobody is going to listen to you.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: themusgrat
Ya, in the grand scheme of things, we really know very little about the way things work. Relative to absolute knowledge, we prolly know very little more now, than we did when Galileo proved that the earth was round, and that it revolved around the sun. I respect that fact that many scientists look at our contribution to CO2/ozone breaking etc., then look at global warming, and say correlation=causation, because that's often true. But not all scientists agree, and more and more are starting to question that, especially now that some are starting to think this phase of global warming is coming to an end, and global cooling will soon start. No doubt, we have an effect, just like as I said earlier, it's been proven that the farts of cows all around the world also have a marked effect.

So I don't think now is the time to be worrying about the end of the world. At the same time, we will always have a responsibility to better ourselves and always be looking for more efficient and less harmful sources of energy. And besides it's really only a matter of time before someone comes up with a viable solution to our energy problems, lots of people are working on it, so chill peeps.

The rail companies are forever having to wash off the goo of folk like you who claim it's safe to walk on their tracks.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Sacrilege

Originally posted by: themusgrat

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: sandorski
So much Fail. GW/CC is real and it's here. The only Politicalization of it comes from the Deniers who view it as a Left Issue, often a conspiracy against the US(for some WTF reason?). It's real, needs dealt with, and we are the primary cause.

This shouldn't have ever become a left vs. right issue.
It has however become a smart vs. stupid one.

Thankfully there are enough smart people left in the world to save it from the dummies.

Trying to tell yourself your side is the smart side is even worse than trying to make it political. Grow up.

It's this disdain for scientists and other educated people, displayed right here, that portends the decline of America.

The vast majority of people who have reviewed climatic data have come to the conclusion that man made global warming is significant.

My fear is that the consensus will be proven wrong in the future and that we will have cost ourselves a fortune due to our political actions. It would not be the first time. One poster in this thread used a reference to the earth being flat as a way to poke fun at the idiocy of those who do not believe humans have an effect on climate change.

Didn't the scientific community once believe the earth was indeed flat?

The "scientific community" once also believed that everything revolved around the Earth.

"GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL WE ARE TOTALLY RIGHT THIS TIME GUYS TRUST US WE NEVER MAKE MISTAKES!"

:roll:

Costing us trillions of dollars for something that is at best a theory, at worst a flat-out lie.

Total BS. Thanks for displaying your Profound Ignorance.

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Patranus
The "pro" global warming lobby is the same as any other liberal group. Makes up its mind and shuts down any discussion and suppresses any other opinion.
http://www.foxnews.com/politic...climate-change-report/

Look at health care. They say they are open for discussion but then let it slip that they will push it through regardless of what the public wants or looking for an alternative bipartisan solution.

Hehe. Tell me you believe the scientific community is similarly a liberal group that is pushing for the theory of evolution and wants to stifle the Creationist freaks.

When an objective body is attackers by loons they fight back with reason. That does not bring them down to the same level as the fruit loops.

Like this?

http://199.6.131.12/en/scictr/...mages/global_temp2.jpg

or this

http://www.architecture2030.or...02-CO2-Temperature.gif

LOL

Evidence of past temperature fluctuations was created by Jesus to test our faith in global warming. Just like dinosaur bones. Large reptiles would require a much warmer climate than today, which is inconceivable.

The only logical course of action is to disregard this faux-data, just like everyone disregards paleontology.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Sacrilege

Originally posted by: themusgrat

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: sandorski
So much Fail. GW/CC is real and it's here. The only Politicalization of it comes from the Deniers who view it as a Left Issue, often a conspiracy against the US(for some WTF reason?). It's real, needs dealt with, and we are the primary cause.

This shouldn't have ever become a left vs. right issue.
It has however become a smart vs. stupid one.

Thankfully there are enough smart people left in the world to save it from the dummies.

Trying to tell yourself your side is the smart side is even worse than trying to make it political. Grow up.

It's this disdain for scientists and other educated people, displayed right here, that portends the decline of America.

The vast majority of people who have reviewed climatic data have come to the conclusion that man made global warming is significant.

My fear is that the consensus will be proven wrong in the future and that we will have cost ourselves a fortune due to our political actions. It would not be the first time. One poster in this thread used a reference to the earth being flat as a way to poke fun at the idiocy of those who do not believe humans have an effect on climate change.

Didn't the scientific community once believe the earth was indeed flat?

The "scientific community" once also believed that everything revolved around the Earth.

"GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL WE ARE TOTALLY RIGHT THIS TIME GUYS TRUST US WE NEVER MAKE MISTAKES!"

:roll:

Costing us trillions of dollars for something that is at best a theory, at worst a flat-out lie.

Flat earther's are relegated to the kids table. Enjoy your seat. :roll:

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: shira
You're missing the point. Yes, even a huge scientific consensus can be utterly wrong. But why does PJabber CHOOSE to believe the NON-consensus? Unless he's in the field himself what is his rationale for rejecting the mountains of data in support of the theory and adopting the much LESS well supported view that human activity is NOT having a significant effect on climate?

No, YOU'RE missing the point. The point is that healthy skepticism is always needed, probably moreso when there is an overwhelming consensus, if for no other reason than to keep the consensus honest. Again I state that a consensus is not fact and at ist's worst it is just the most horrendous type of groupthink.

Originally posted by: sandorski

Utter Fail. "Consensus" exists because of legitimacy of the evidence, not because of some nefarious reason. You are attacking for a nefarious purpose, that is to simply dismiss Facts that don't agree with your nefarious opinions.

No....... Consensus exists because the facts are nebulous and a majority accept one interpretation of the facts as most likely, most logical, or most reasonable. CONSENSUS IS NOT FACT OR PROOF.

There was a consensus that the Earth is flat: false
There was a consensus that the Earth is the center of the solar system: false
There was a consensus that the Earth's continents were NOT drifting: false
There was a consensus that Newtonian physics was always true: false
There was a consensus that the atom was the building block of matter: false
There was a consensus that all things were comprised of earth, air, fire, and water: false
There was a consensus that mandatory sterilization of mental patients would end mental illness: false

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Genx87
Anybody living in the upper plains, more specifically MN knows we have had bitter winters and mild summers the last 3 years. I really enjoyed the 65 and 30 MPH winds last weekend at the lake. Wearing a late fall jacket in the first weekend of August is not what I call a good time. Our winters have been brutal and longer than usual. This year was a little better but in 2008 we had 40s and 50 into early May and some places up north were still iced in for fishing opener.

Ah, so your "scientific method" is that if a four pack-a-day smoker has great health for three years, that must mean that cigarette smoking isn't dangerous to health. Or if you flip a coin four times and it comes up "heads" on every flip, that must mean that the coin is flawed. Or if you go to singles bars and have unprotected sex with numerous women over the course of three years and remain disease-free, that must mean there's no such thing as AIDs.

You're a cretin.

I may be a cretin but you are a complete dumbass for that response to my observation of what is happening in MN.

Summers here in FL are hotter and longer. We used to have hard freezes where people had to cover their plant to protect them. I can't remember the last hard freeze here and I've been here almost 30 years. I guess that means the planet really is warming.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: shira
You're missing the point. Yes, even a huge scientific consensus can be utterly wrong. But why does PJabber CHOOSE to believe the NON-consensus? Unless he's in the field himself what is his rationale for rejecting the mountains of data in support of the theory and adopting the much LESS well supported view that human activity is NOT having a significant effect on climate?

No, YOU'RE missing the point. The point is that healthy skepticism is always needed, probably moreso when there is an overwhelming consensus, if for no other reason than to keep the consensus honest. Again I state that a consensus is not fact and at ist's worst it is just the most horrendous type of groupthink.

Originally posted by: sandorski

Utter Fail. "Consensus" exists because of legitimacy of the evidence, not because of some nefarious reason. You are attacking for a nefarious purpose, that is to simply dismiss Facts that don't agree with your nefarious opinions.

No....... Consensus exists because the facts are nebulous and a majority accept one interpretation of the facts as most likely, most logical, or most reasonable. CONSENSUS IS NOT FACT OR PROOF.

There was a consensus that the Earth is flat: false
There was a consensus that the Earth is the center of the solar system: false
There was a consensus that the Earth's continents were NOT drifting: false
There was a consensus that Newtonian physics was always true: false
There was a consensus that the atom was the building block of matter: false
There was a consensus that all things were comprised of earth, air, fire, and water: false
There was a consensus that mandatory sterilization of mental patients would end mental illness: false

Uhmmm... while I agree consensus is obviously not fact, many of those things you mention are most certainly not true, and others are gross distortions. There was never a consensus that sterilizing mental patients would end mental illness. Furthermore with things such as the flat earth, heliocentrism, earth/fire/water, etc. you are talking about 'scientific' opinions that were little more than superstition and religious dogma... or plain wild guesses based upon no real evidence. To equate science then and science now is an insult to all the people who dedicate their lives to figuring these things out.

Despite all this, the simple fact remains that the vast... vast... VAST majority of available evidence points to man having significant influence over the global climate. We would be fools to ignore it.

 

[PJABBER]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
...The consensus of the scientific community is that it is real... The fact of the matter is that the scientific concensus is that Global warming is real. It doesn't mattter that a bunch of scientists disagree. The scientific consensus is that global warming is real. As long as the consensus among scientists that global warming is real the science says it's real.

Galileo Galilei would disagree. Consensus does not make science, fact does. All the world's scientists could wake up tomorrow and declare the sky to be green. The consensus among scientists that the sky is green does not alter the fact that the sky is blue. The facts of "climate change" are still in debate.

You're missing the point. Yes, even a huge scientific consensus can be utterly wrong. But why does PJabber CHOOSE to believe the NON-consensus? Unless he's in the field himself what is his rationale for rejecting the mountains of data in support of the theory and adopting the much LESS well supported view that human activity is NOT having a significant effect on climate?

Look at Moonbeam's long post again: If 39 out of 40 scientists in the climate-related fields believe that mankind's behavior is having a significant effect on climate, why would anyone else choose to reject that view? Religion? Economic self-interest? Ideology? Plain old contrariness?

If you saw 40 cardiologists, and 39 of them said you urgently needed bypass surgery and had voluminous data to back those opinions up, would you defer to the 1 cardiologist who told you to do nothing?

Edit: And I should add: You will ALWAYS find someone (a scientist, a physician, or whatever) who will tell you to do nothing.

Shira, you misunderstand my position, which is that I am a skeptic when confronted with claims of certainty. Even more so when there is a growing body of expert research which reaches contradicting and alternative conclusion.

I view the world through the shades of an economist, not a scientist, so my review of data is different than someone deep in the trenches. It means I am inclined toward synthesis of widely varied bodies of knowledge.

I want political decisions to be based on outcomes and I want expenditures to be made only after a complete understanding of the opportunity costs.

My view is that we do need a lot more understanding of natural phenomenon and planetary climate variance. Right now the science is uncertain and growing less certain, the effectiveness of proposed action is highly questionable, the projected costs of implementing programs that are admittedly ineffective is astronomical, the opportunity costs are inhumane.

As far as I am concerned, there is no perfectly static state of climate and any attempt at achieving such a state is hubris in the extreme.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: shira
You're missing the point. Yes, even a huge scientific consensus can be utterly wrong. But why does PJabber CHOOSE to believe the NON-consensus? Unless he's in the field himself what is his rationale for rejecting the mountains of data in support of the theory and adopting the much LESS well supported view that human activity is NOT having a significant effect on climate?

No, YOU'RE missing the point. The point is that healthy skepticism is always needed, probably moreso when there is an overwhelming consensus, if for no other reason than to keep the consensus honest. Again I state that a consensus is not fact and at ist's worst it is just the most horrendous type of groupthink.

Originally posted by: sandorski

Utter Fail. "Consensus" exists because of legitimacy of the evidence, not because of some nefarious reason. You are attacking for a nefarious purpose, that is to simply dismiss Facts that don't agree with your nefarious opinions.

No....... Consensus exists because the facts are nebulous and a majority accept one interpretation of the facts as most likely, most logical, or most reasonable. CONSENSUS IS NOT FACT OR PROOF.

There was a consensus that the Earth is flat: false
There was a consensus that the Earth is the center of the solar system: false
There was a consensus that the Earth's continents were NOT drifting: false
There was a consensus that Newtonian physics was always true: false
There was a consensus that the atom was the building block of matter: false
There was a consensus that all things were comprised of earth, air, fire, and water: false
There was a consensus that mandatory sterilization of mental patients would end mental illness: false

sigh.
Earth Flat---Not a consensus amongst Modern Science--Fail for you
Earth Center of the universe---Not a consensus amongst Modern Science---Fail for you
Earth Continents not drifting---Haven't heard of this one, but will assume it's True at some point in Modern Science---Modern Science gathered Evidence as Methods improved proving otherwise
Newtonian Physics---Modern Science held onto it because all Tests known to them confirmed it. Once they had developed other Tests and saw that they were not correct, the consensus changed
Atom---ditto last 2
Air, Fire Water--not Modern Science---Fail for you
Mandatory sterilization----Obscure branch of Medical Science

Your error is assuming that Science is always wrong because you can find some examples of it. A Consensus exists based upon the Best Knowledge available that Tests positive as many times as one performs tests on it. What you want to do is to simply ignore any Science that you disagree with, then use your above list as a reason to.

How about actual Scientific Data(not Opinions) against it? Now you'll probably post a barrage of non-Scientifically arrived at Charts, Diagrams, and written pieces so popular amongst the Denialists. Fail every one of them, but you'll treat them as Gospel while ignoring the Overwhelming amount of Scientific Studies that clearly show Global Warming, The Components that Cause Global Warming, and the Sources of those Components.

So go on, be a Contrarian for contraries sake. Ignore the real Science while clinging to the faux "science" you so love. Even though it often Contradicts itself.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Mankind has spent a hundred fifty years pouring a Billion years of sequestered carbon into the atmosphere as CO2, to no effect? Ya right! Betcha' somebody got a right wing think tank on his favorites.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: sandorski

sigh.
Earth Flat---Not a consensus amongst Modern Science--Fail for you
Earth Center of the universe---Not a consensus amongst Modern Science---Fail for you
Earth Continents not drifting---Haven't heard of this one, but will assume it's True at some point in Modern Science---Modern Science gathered Evidence as Methods improved proving otherwise
Newtonian Physics---Modern Science held onto it because all Tests known to them confirmed it. Once they had developed other Tests and saw that they were not correct, the consensus changed
Atom---ditto last 2
Air, Fire Water--not Modern Science---Fail for you
Mandatory sterilization----Obscure branch of Medical Science

Your error is assuming that Science is always wrong because you can find some examples of it. A Consensus exists based upon the Best Knowledge available that Tests positive as many times as one performs tests on it. What you want to do is to simply ignore any Science that you disagree with, then use your above list as a reason to.

How about actual Scientific Data(not Opinions) against it? Now you'll probably post a barrage of non-Scientifically arrived at Charts, Diagrams, and written pieces so popular amongst the Denialists. Fail every one of them, but you'll treat them as Gospel while ignoring the Overwhelming amount of Scientific Studies that clearly show Global Warming, The Components that Cause Global Warming, and the Sources of those Components.

So go on, be a Contrarian for contraries sake. Ignore the real Science while clinging to the faux "science" you so love. Even though it often Contradicts itself.

You said it better than I did. They are basically arguing that because science has been wrong in the past (and is has been... many many times), that we shouldn't act upon the scientific data available to us. It's basically a way to ignore any science that you disagree with, because there will ALWAYS be dissenting opinions. Hell, there's still a flat earth society. In this case, clouding the issue so nothing gets done is every bit as good as winning for the deniers, so that's what they do.

In this case science could be wrong too, it's always possible. To see this preponderance of evidence and choose not to act however is simply mind bogglingly irresponsible.

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
In this case science could be wrong too, it's always possible. To see this preponderance of evidence and choose not to act however is simply mind bogglingly irresponsible.

Then act for reasons we know (and there are many). Low level atmospheric pollution causes respiratory problems and acid rain, for example. These are things nobody disputes. But to isolate CO2 as THE cause of global warming is ridiculous. It is but one factor out of thousands (many of which we probably don't even know), and saying we need to cut CO2 output or it will turn our planet into Venus is sensationalist garbage.