RAGINGDEBATE.COM NETWORK - FACILITATING CITIZEN'S POWERED MEDIA
Economy
Energy
Health
World News
Politics

15 Comments

Vote FOR or AGAINST comments below.
  • Vote
  • 3
  • 0

I have found that no amount of truth, evidence, or proof wll change the mind of a Warmer. But if the "science is settled" regarding "Global Warming," as they claim, then surely they ought to accept this challenge from 141 fellow scientists and prove their claim.

Do you think this Challenge Letter will be mentioned in the media?

Must run. Have company. Later.

 

  • Vote
  • 0
  • 4

I'm sure that thousands of scientists would sign a petition requesting that Global Warming be disproved by the protesting scientists.

 

Neither the letter from the 141 or the hypothetical letter from the thousands actually amount to a hill of beans.  This question can not be resolved without research.  So, if scientists would stop writing letters and collect and analyze more data, we would get closer to sorting all of this out.  At this juncture in history, the philosophers and special interests are occupying too much of the intellectual space.  The people doing real research are overshadowed by the vacuous who have made up their minds with incomplete data that climate is getting warmer, getting colder or merely in a state of random fluctuation.

 

It is not a question of put up or shut up; it is a matter of get up and do the work. 

RagingDebate.com - therealevil
therealevil
  • Vote
  • 0
  • 4

9/11 questioners are "truthers", people questioning Obama's true origins are "birthers", Global warming scientists are "warmers", it's great stuff I'm seeing here.  A dismissive nickname for every conceivable group of people whose ideas or questions you don't like!

 

Hey, whatever happened to those letters "proving" warming was a hoax?  Seems like everyone's conveniently forgotten about them.  "coolers" (see? I can make up insulting nicknames too!) are keeping that incident in the bottom of their mind to justify their beliefs, but the foundation is cracked and rotten.

 

  • Vote
  • 1
  • 2

For those who have not made up their mind about how the future data will turn out, here is an interesting article on "Climategate":

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34392959/ns/us_news-environment/?GT1=43001

 

If your mind is made up, don't waste your time with the above link.

  • Vote
  • 0
  • 2

Ultimately, what any of us has to say will not affect the scientific outcome of research on earth's climate. As throughout human history, scientific facts will determine the outcome of this in the end.

Let me repeat what I wrote in a comment on SA sometime ago. Imagine the disgust future humans in the year 2300 will have for us if we really have a global warming problem and the quality of life on earth (for the survivors at that time) is harsh because changes in human behavior 300 years earlier that could have avoided the disaster were not taken. Now, imagine the same disgust for the current human population at that same future time if actions taken in the 21st century caused the onset of the most severe ice age of the past million years and human existance in 2300 had become very difficult.

Does that clarify in any way where I am coming from? We should all be clamoring for the necessary work to be done before political forces waste money, at the least, or create a future disaster at the worst. On the otherhand, if we take no action until all the evidence is in, will we have done the right thing? I am not prepared to answer that, at least not with specific suggested actions. However, I think it is something that everyone here should be contemplating.

RagingDebate.com - ragingmorons
ragingmorons
  • Vote
  • 0
  • 2

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/12/trust_scientists

 

Summary for those who can't read real good: "Denialists aren't neutral skeptics, they are approaching AGW with the assumption that it is a hoax and ignoring data that suggests otherwise"

  • Vote
  • 2
  • 0

Here Moron is the response to the Economist’s attack article which you, being a Warmer, conveniently left out: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/sticky-for-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/  Perhaps you should brush up on your reading skills; then next time you may not leave out the response.

Here we have the Warmers being caught again—conveniently leaving out data that disprove their claims. This is at least three times they’ve been caught. One has to wonder how many more convenient deletions are out there.

Strange is it not that they always leave out data that goes against them?

  • Vote
  • 0
  • 0

We have seen how well computer based models model financial risk, why do we think that they can model climate risk any better?  Are environomental scientists somehow smarter than the financial engineers?  Both groups have plenty of MIT PhDs, Harvard PhDs and a host of other incredibly smart brainiacs working in their camps.   Both financial engineering and climate change have ever changing tail risk inherent in them and both groups can be affected by something as seemingly insignificant as the flap of a butterfly's wing.

Leave a Comment
*NOTE: is our spam filter eating your comments? Become a registered user and login. Click here to learn more.