Si modo
Diamond Member
It's a typo.When you say "worldwide body of scientists" are you trying to say that all the scientists, or even close to all of them, have the same opinion about the hypothesis of APW? If so, you are egregiously misinformed.So what's the motivation for the worldwide body of scientists touting the likelyhood that man's activities are the cause, if it really isn't?
As I said, and you didn't contend, all their predictions are coming true, and at an accelerated rate as industrialization accelerates.
What causes you to dismiss the worldwide body of science which says it's the near-certain cause, and favor the outlying possibility that they're wrong and it's all a coincidence?
Regardless, scientists are persons and have opinions. When they have science to support the hypothesis I will be more than happy to agree with their opinions. Until then, I and many others, will continue to point out to those who come to scientific conclusions which are not based on existing science, that the science does not support the APW hypothesis. That's just how I roll.
'APW' again, is that a typo or some pejorative with which I'm unfamiliar? (as opposed to AGW)
Yes, near-complete consensus, especially among the most specialized circles (97% of climatologists, with 2% unsure).
I'm tempted to study the actual methodology some more just so I can make a more articulate argument, but the truth is I'm not a scientist. I depend on those with the most expertise.
My observation has been that almost all of the 'opposing viewpoints' have come from the American right, and always consist of either 1. Attacking the persons or organizations involved, rather than the actual scientific methods; 2. Simply stating that it's 'just a theory,' eg rejecting any level of proof as insufficient; and/or 3. Proclaiming that it's part of some biiiiiiiiiiiiiggggg smoking-man type conspiracy.
If you have something more profound to offer that might change my mind, by all means. But most of what I get here is simply second-hand employment of the above methods and lots of ad-hominem.
Science is not governed by democratic principles rather it is governed by the logic of scientific discovery. So any claimed consensus is irrelevant.
As to your observations, you would be better off looking at not the political leanings of the scientist, as that is also irrelevant to actual science, rather you should be looking at the science. As to your observations about those who are not believers in AGW, there is a general political division among those who talk about the politics of it.
For those who talk about the science of it, and those who value scientific integrity over politics, you may want to pay attention to the actual science.
As I've said many times before, the state of climate science does not support ANY conclusion about the significance and magnitude of anthropogenic CO2 on any global warming. When there IS actual science showing such causation, I will change my opinion.
Until that time, I will continue to state the truth - that the current state of the science does not support the hypothesis - and I will highlight those who choose to soil science with politics.
Last edited: