[NeedKarma]

He called the notion of 'Peak Oil ' a conspiracy by the fossil fuel industry to keep prices high.

Interesting theory since "peak oil' was a big motivation for those striving to create alternative energy options.

[Tuttyd]

Consensus is an important part of science without consensus science could not progress that's just the way it works.

A good example of this can be found in Newton's gravitational theories. Newton's Universal Gravitational Theory, for a long time was accepted as the complete explanation for the orbit of the planets. It became a consensus science.

It was later discovered that Mercury did not obey Newton because it had an unusual orbit. The first thing that consensus science did was to try and modify the theory in order to explain Mercury's orbit.

When this failed other postulates were proposed. The last thing anyone wanted to do was deny the validity of accepted orthodoxy.No doubt anyone who suggest that Newton was wrong would have been looked upon with a deal of skepticism.The problem was finally resolved when Einstein came onto the scene.

The point I am making is that consensus science is an essential process that science goes through. Science will try just about anything to keep the prevailing orthodoxy. The last resort being the modification of the hypothesis in the hope that theory will match the observations. If this also fails then there is nothing left except to find a new theory.

In terms of global warming science is just doing what it has always done. Just going through the process.

[speechlesstx]

Consensus is important, but science does not dismiss evidence that contradicts. Period.

[tomder55]

but is consensus and group think a valid scientific argument ? Let's face the facts ... it's already proven that the leading climate scientists manipulated their data to achieve predetermined results. How many of their results have been verified and duplicated without using the same fraud (see the East Anglia e-mails ) . Those results should've been immediately dismissed by the 'consensus ' scientific community instead of embraced as gospel truth .

[speechlesstx]

but is consensus and group think a valid scientific argument ? Let's face the facts ... it's already proven that the leading climate scientists manipulated their data to achieve predetermined results. How many of their results have been verified and duplicated without using the same fraud (see the East Anglia e-mails ) . Those results should've been immediately dismissed by the 'consensus ' scientific community instead of embraced as gospel truth .

Again, exactly right. True science does not manipulate data for a preferred outcome or dismiss evidence that contradicts.

[paraclete]

look global warming is pseudo science, what we know for sure is something is happening, we have consensus on that, we have paleoscientists tell us this is just part of a longer cycle, we have politicians telling us we must act to stop it immediately, we have computer modellers telling us the sky is falling, no wait it's not falling, the ocean is rising, well at least they got that one right, but the oceans have been rising for thousands of years personally I don't think anything is happening that wasn't happening before we noticed it is happening

[talaniman]

Politics, and money often muddy the waters of facts.

[paraclete]

the opposite of politics is fact or truth depending upon your point of view but politics is the science of dogooding at someoneelses expense, they have a term for it; political science

[Tuttyd]

Consensus is important, but science does not dismiss evidence that contradicts. Period.

Oddly enough it does. Anomalies appear in most levels of scientific study and for the most part they are accepted or tolerated. They are usually put down as acceptable levels of error or dismissed all together.

Clearly such a situation must eventually reach the point where it becomes intolerable, and there is a need to recognize that the theory is inadequate or completely wrong. This is where a modification of the hypothesis usually becomes the first resort.

As far as the scientists who falsify data are concerned they see the best resort as scientific dishonesty. Clearly such people are not prepared to modify anything and certainly are not prepared to consider a new theory when or if it becomes apparent.

At this stage it appears that the working hypothesis of global warming is not delivering suitable predictions. As usual science will probably go through its usual process as outlined earlier.

[Tuttyd]

but is consensus and group think a valid scientific argument ?

No, it's not a valid scientific argument, but it is a valid psychological argument.
Both arguments play an important role in science.

Let's face the facts ... it's already proven that the leading climate scientists manipulated their data to achieve predetermined results. How many of their results have been verified and duplicated without using the same fraud (see the East Anglia e-mails ) . Those results should've been immediately dismissed by the 'consensus ' scientific community instead of embraced as gospel truth .

I don't know the answer to that and I would suggest not many people do. The information is out there somewhere. Herein is a good research project for you.

[paraclete]

The information is out there somewhere

That's not all that is out there somewhere but it as apt description of what is suggested is climate "science"

[speechlesstx]

Apparently the NY Slimes thinks skeptics should just be eliminated. They just published a cartoon depicting a guy getting stabbed in the chest by an icicle - aka "self-destructing sabers for dispatching climate change deniers."



Not funny. One scientist has had enough and about damn time. Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D., a former NASA climatologist and now the Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, is pushing back.

Time to push back against the global warming Nazis

[talaniman]

Outrage over cartoons?

[NeedKarma]

Just like those Islam folks who are outraged at Mohammed cartoons.

[speechlesstx]

Just like those Islam folks who are outraged at Mohammed cartoons.

The comparison you're looking for would be the climate change extremists to those outraged over the Mohammed cartoons.

[Tuttyd]

Time to push back against the global warming Nazis

Like the cartoon, it's just another political rave devoid of anything useful that could be considered useful to the debate. I blame the media.

[tomder55]

imagine if a conservative posted a cartoon of a skeptic stabbing a global warming cult believer with an icicle ? They went nuts when they though Palin had a target in one of her political ads . They blamed her for a mass shooting .

[Tuttyd]

imagine if a conservative posted a cartoon of a skeptic stabbing a global warming cult believer with an icicle ? They went nuts when they though Palin had a target in one of her political ads . They blamed her for a mass shooting .

Tom I am not sure why you are complaining. Aren't you a great supporter of your media? Irresponsible journalism is Ok?

[speechlesstx]

Like the cartoon, it's just another political rave devoid of anything useful that could be considered useful to the debate. I blame the media.

What debate? That's the problem, there is no debate.

And there are some stories which do not have two sides. The climate change debate is one of them.

Let that sink in, only one side to a 'debate.'

[Tuttyd]

What debate? That's the problem, there is no debate.



Let that sink in, only one side to a 'debate.'

Again, it's like I said before. It is a media problem you have. Only airing one side of the debate. You need a balanced media.