Climate Change -- conspiracy theory or is it time we all drive a Prius?
It's always remarkable to see the number of people who think that the "scientific community" is infallible. Methinks someone is too smart for his own good.
Quote: Beethoven9thUh oh...another academic elistist on board. To be fair, I also used to think that I knew everything when I was in college. Then the real world straightened me out.
It's always remarkable to see the number of people who think that the "scientific community" is infallible.
No one thinks scientists are infallible, but we actually do know some stuff. And usually arguments against current scientific understanding begin with an adequate demonstration of a) scientific literacy b) knowledge of current work and how the conclusions were reached c) putting forth a better argument with better explanatory and predictive ability.
Saying "ah you young folks" or "yea I'm part of the real world now' or "scientists can be wrong" actually aren't arguments. Astrophysicists might be wrong about everything concerning how stars form too, but why would I think that, or assert it in public, especially since I have little training in the subject? I realize it's the internet so people can just ramble without justification for anything they say, but at least try to be serious.
Quote: cmc0605No one thinks scientists are infallible, but we actually do know some stuff.
Astrophysicists might be wrong about everything concerning how stars form too, but why would I think that, or assert it in public, especially since I have little training in the subject?
Hehe...gotta love the arrogance.
Anyway, if you want to get technical about this, you're not even a scientist yet. You're still a student.
Quote: Beethoven9thQuote: cmc0605No one thinks scientists are infallible, but we actually do know some stuff. And usually arguments against current scientific understanding begin with an adequate demonstration of a) scientific literacy b) knowledge of current work and how the conclusions were reached c) putting forth a better argument with better explanatory and predictive ability.
Saying "ah you young folks" or "scientists can be wrong" actually isn't an argument. Astrophysicists might be wrong about everything concerning how stars form too, but why would I think that, or assert it in public, especially since I have little training in the subject? I realize it's the internet so people can just ramble without justification for anything they say, but at least try to be serious.
Hehe...gotta love the arrogance.
Anyway, if you want to get technical about this, you're not even a scientist yet. You're still a student.
Arrogant? No arrogant is assuming you are born with some hidden knowledge of a technical subject, or that somehow you "learn" atmospheric dynamics with age without ever reading anything on the subject. It would be arrogant for me to go up to a heart surgeon and tell him he's an idiot because I watched a youtube video on the heart. It's not arrogant to claim you have no idea what you're talking about....see American fallacy
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/06/24/dumb-america/
Yes, I'm a PhD student, with a half decade of coursework or research behind me, and a longer interest in the subject. I am more than qualified to discuss the basic physics of climate change, even though there's still a lot of stuff for me (or anyone) to learn. I won't argue at what point one becomes a "scientist" but I don't require you to be one either- but I do hope that you can have the intellectual integrity to defend your claims with actual science, rather than conspiracies, appeals to your age and life experiences, fancy rhetoric, whether or not you like my attitude, or whether you think I know enough.
Quote: kenarmanWell we skeptics have at least 1 Noble prize winner on our side but I guess he is probably not a 'real scientist'.
He's a real physicist. I'd imagine he has more interesting points to make than those on this thread, but why should we laymen listen to this voice in the wilderness over the scientists in relevant fields? No, really, tell me - what is his case that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are not contributing to global warming? Because all I'm seeing is why people would say otherwise if that were the case.
Quote: kenarmanMy point has always been that we don't know enough to say how these are linked to have an undeniable cause and effect relationship proven.
There's a particular obsession with "100% proof" that permeates denialism. No one has this high a standard of proof when they haven't already made up their minds.
Speaking of which:
Quote: EvenBobI can't believe I'm still reading this thread.
Its like this. There were rumors during WWII
that Hitler was killing people in death camps
by the million. It wasn't until the war was over,
and Ike went in and ordered pictures taken
before they liberated anybody, it wasn't till
then that we had the proof.
There is no conclusive proof GW is man made.
Until that day arrives, nobody will agree on
anything.
"It's natural until I see a photo of the concept of anthropogeny!"
I'm just going to guess this is not your usual standard for deciding whether a phenomenon is anthropogenic.
Quote: EvenBobAnd there are STILL people who think the Holocaust
was a hoax.
...whom most people, frankly quite reasonably, assume to have an ulterior motive. Anyway...
Quote: kenarmanThe warming of the planet will increase CO2 levels on it's own as the oceans hold less CO2 at higher temperatures.
That's true. But scientists know that, and I'd like to see someone in a relevant field saying it's a one-way street.
Quote: kenarmanBut as Ivar has noted the pressure to not conform has become enourmous.
Not to? ...Freudian slip?
But again, where are the emails saying "hey, guys, I think X might suggest this whole thing might be natural after all" / "SILENCE - you must be mistaken, for the sake of all our careers, although I cannot say how; nonetheless, let us bury it forthwith"?
Quote: kenarmanIvar Giaever, a Nobel Prize winner in physics, isn't a thought leader, per se, in the climate skeptics scene -- but the mere fact that he has come out as being a skeptic and has a Nobel Prize makes him important. His big beef is that climate change orthodoxy has become a "new religion" for scientists, and that the data isn't nearly as compelling as it should be to get this kind of conformity.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-ten-most-important-climate-change-skeptics-2009-7?op=1#ixzz2a7ArEeJZ
There we go - he's attacking the attitudes of the people involved, and demanding an impossible standard of proof. What he doesn't have is a solid argument that, in essence, greenhouse gases aren't.
Quote: cmc0605Arrogant? No arrogant is assuming you are born with some hidden knowledge of a technical subject, or that somehow you "learn" atmospheric dynamics with age without ever reading anything on the subject.
Actually, it's pretty darn arrogant to dismiss an opposing point of view just because the person is not a part of your little clique.
Quote: cmc0605Yes, I'm a PhD student, with a half decade of coursework or research behind me. I am more than qualified to discuss the basic physics of climate change...
Good for you. Unfortunately, you're still not a scientist. If you don't want to listen to us because we're not actual scientists, then I hate to break the news to you, but neither are you.
Quote: cmc0605Quote: Beethoven9thQuote: cmc0605No one thinks scientists are infallible, but we actually do know some stuff. And usually arguments against current scientific understanding begin with an adequate demonstration of a) scientific literacy b) knowledge of current work and how the conclusions were reached c) putting forth a better argument with better explanatory and predictive ability.
Saying "ah you young folks" or "scientists can be wrong" actually isn't an argument. Astrophysicists might be wrong about everything concerning how stars form too, but why would I think that, or assert it in public, especially since I have little training in the subject? I realize it's the internet so people can just ramble without justification for anything they say, but at least try to be serious.
Hehe...gotta love the arrogance.
Anyway, if you want to get technical about this, you're not even a scientist yet. You're still a student.
Arrogant? No arrogant is assuming you are born with some hidden knowledge of a technical subject, or that somehow you "learn" atmospheric dynamics with age without ever reading anything on the subject. It would be arrogant for me to go up to a heart surgeon and tell him he's an idiot because I watched a youtube video on the heart. It's not arrogant to claim you have no idea what you're talking about....see American fallacy
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/06/24/dumb-america/
Yes, I'm a PhD student, with a half decade of coursework or research behind me, and a longer interest in the subject. I am more than qualified to discuss the basic physics of climate change, even though there's still a lot of stuff for me (or anyone) to learn. I will be quite clear to state when I am not confident to speak on a particular subject. I won't argue at what point one becomes a "scientist" but I don't require you to be one either- but I do hope that you can have the intellectual integrity to defend your claims with actual science, rather than conspiracies, appeals to your age and life experiences, fancy rhetoric, whether or not you like my attitude, or whether you think I know enough.
Quote: cmc0605You're out of touch with scientific reality and haven't the first clue what you don't know. .
Its the soothing sound of crickets chirping because
the outdoor amphitheater is empty. The speaker
is talking to himself yet again.
I'm hoping not 'a PhD'. That's a rather high bar. And kinda of strange one.
I know Doctoral students who are scientists (in a different field) and extremely knowledgable in their fields. And paid 'scientists' who don't have a PhD, and rather shallow knowledge of much outside the day-to-day running of their commercial labs (but inside them, highly trained in the experimental process they need to furnish data to other people, and perform diagnostic work that makes my head spin).
Quote: thecesspitWhat makes a scientist then?.
Ask the science student. I couldn't care less, but the science student is the one who seems to care so much about people's credentials.
Quote: Beethoven9thAsk the science student. I couldn't care less, but the science student here is the one who cares so much about people's credentials.
Didn't you just tell him he wasn't a scientist? I though you might be able to tell us all what bar you need to jump to make a scientist.
You seem to know a lot about it, you see.
I'm just a poor engineer. Who should really know better.
Quote: thecesspitWhat makes a scientist then?
.
Just calling yourself one makes you a scientist.
There are no 'scientist' degree's.
scientist [ˈsaɪəntɪst]
n
a person who studies or practises any of the sciences
Quote: thecesspitDidn't you just tell him he wasn't a scientist?
Yes I did, but did you bother to read what I had replied to? The student here only seems to value the views of "scientists" while dismissing the views of people on this board, so I figure that turnabout is fair play. If the student wants to blast us for not being scientists, then we can make the same claim against him.
However, if you want to attack those with credentials...whether it be their knowledge or their motives, you should back it up with evidence, otherwise I am well within my right to dismiss your views
Quote: EvenBobscientist [ˈsaɪəntɪst]
n
a person who studies or practises any of the sciences
That's good, so if the student here is a "scientist", then so am I.
Quote: cmc0605To be clear, I don't care whether or not I or anyone else is a "scientist" (however you want to define it) or whether you have credentials.
Hmm...
Quote: On 6/25/13 at 8:08pm, cmc0605 said:It's also remarkable that people think finding some nobel prize winner in an unrelated field is some sort of argument against the conclusions of modern atmospheric physics.
Seeing these forum debates is like watching a 1st grader learning addition telling a mathematician that he doesn't believe calculus works, or like me asserting that I don't believe that brain surgeons are doing their job correctly.
...yet now he says he doesn't "care whether or not I or anyone else is a 'scientist'" or "whether you have credentials". (Nice backtrack)
Quote: cmc0605but I do hope that you can have the intellectual integrity to defend your claims with actual science, rather than conspiracies, appeals to your age and life experiences, fancy rhetoric, whether or not you like my attitude, or whether you think I know enough.
You've likely made a bad bet.
When people start making fun of education you know you're in the mud already.
I totally agree. That's why I was so surprised at this statement:Quote: rxwineWhen people start making fun of education you know you're in the mud already.
Quote: On 6/25/13 at 8:08pm, cmc0605 said:Seeing these forum debates is like watching a 1st grader learning addition telling a mathematician that he doesn't believe calculus works...
Quote: Beethoven9thHmm...
...yet now he says he doesn't "care whether or not I or anyone else is a 'scientist'" or "whether you have credentials". (Nice backtrack)
No backtracking. I do value education in a subject, and I actually think that learning a field for many years gives you insight that others don't have. This has nothing to do with intelligence. If you have a problem with your back, you go to a relevant practitioner in physical therapy, not a dentist, even though the latter is educated. If the city needs a bridge built, they go to a relevant engineering/design group, not to a biologist. People take this pretty easy-to-understand concept of expertise for granted everyday except when it comes to various science topics like evolution or climate change. I do find it interesting to observe, but since we live in America and need to listen to everyone's world views, I am more than happy to listen to yours. I'm under no obligation to, but it's a slow night, and am here. Heck, I could even teach you something about the science if you wanted.
It's become quite obvious, however, that you'd rather talk about "me" and the philosophy of what I just said, rather than anything of scientific substance. Perhaps it's because you have formed an opinion on the science, and you don't really know why?
Quote: cmc0605It's become quite obvious, however, that you'd rather talk about "me" and the philosophy of what I just said, rather than anything of scientific substance.
Now that's a good one. A really good one.
Earlier, another member brought up a Nobel Laureate who disagrees with your view. (Mind you, I don't know who this person is nor do I know what his/her arguments are.) But rather than asking what his/her arguments are and giving them careful consideration, you instead attacked the person. This is what you said:
"It's also remarkable that people think finding some nobel prize winner in an unrelated field is some sort of argument against the conclusions of modern atmospheric physics."
It's quite amusing how you're guilty of the exact same thing that you accuse everybody else of. You'd rather attack the opposing Nobel Laureate rather than debate his/her views.
There's no link to an article called "1,000 most respected global-warming believers." Even most of the people on that list believe in anthropogenic climate change but think that the magnitude is smaller or that we are being too alarmist.
The magnitude of climate change *is* up for debate because computer models are being updated and climate change is an inexact science due to the incredible complexity of the planet. What do do about climate change *is* also out for debate because that's a lively political exercise.
To claim that there is no climate change due to us living on this planet when the objective science clearly demonstrates otherwise is plainly moronic. Of course, you're welcome to believe otherwise.
So the original post is out there. Is climate change a hoax, and if so, prove it. Show the equations that prove (1) that all of the CO2 being emitted by humans has no effect on the concentration of the atmospheric CO2, and (2) that increased CO2 in the atmosphere has no effect whatsoever on the climate.
Heck, you might win a Nobel Prize.
And, go.
Quote: Beethoven9thNow that's a good one. A really good one.
Earlier, another member brought up a Nobel Laureate who disagrees with your view. (Mind you, I don't know who this person is nor do I know what his/her arguments are.) But rather than asking what his/her arguments are and giving them careful consideration, you instead attacked the person. This is what you said:
"It's also remarkable that people think finding some nobel prize winner in an unrelated field is some sort of argument against the conclusions of modern atmospheric physics."
It's quite amusing how you're guilty of the exact same thing that you accuse everybody else of. You'd rather attack the opposing Nobel Laureate rather than debate his/her views.
If people want to discuss science on here, I will respond appropriately. Saying some nobel guy doesn't agree is not really interesting.
I know you think I'm asking for a lot, or being inconsistent, but I'm really not- If you want to attack the science, put up a convincing argument (and your own original words and thoughts) as to why you think we have gotten it wrong...and why the National Academies around the world, or the IPCC, etc should revise their views. Otherwise, don't attack the science, or the integrity of scientists!!
Quote: boymimboI'm wondering if cmc expects an actual and intelligent debate on climate change on a gambling forum. I certainly don't.
There's no link to an article called "1,000 most respected global-warming believers." Even most of the people on that list believe in anthropogenic climate change but think that the magnitude is smaller or that we are being too alarmist.
The magnitude of climate change *is* up for debate because computer models are being updated and climate change is an inexact science due to the incredible complexity of the planet. What do do about climate change *is* also out for debate because that's a lively political exercise.
To claim that there is no climate change due to us living on this planet when the objective science clearly demonstrates otherwise is plainly moronic. Of course, you're welcome to believe otherwise.
So the original post is out there. Is climate change a hoax, and if so, prove it. Show the equations that prove (1) that all of the CO2 being emitted by humans has no effect on the concentration of the atmospheric CO2, and (2) that increased CO2 in the atmosphere has no effect whatsoever on the climate.
Heck, you might win a Nobel Prize.
And, go.
I may naive about expectations, but a frequent problem in the public discourse is people who criticize science and scientists without any basis for doing so. I don't think it's wrong to ask people to defend their veiws. I can't make them, but if I can get just one person someday to say "hey, maybe I'll read this scientific report and re-examine what FOX news told me" then I consider it a success, even after 20 wasted efforts.
Quote: cmc0605If people want to discuss science on here, I will respond appropriately. Saying some nobel guy doesn't agree is not really interesting.
You're pretty good at contradicting yourself. You claim to want to discuss science, yet when another brings up a Nobel Laureate's opposing view, you have no interest at all in his/her arguments. You'd rather attack his/her credentials. No wonder why nobody ever proves you wrong. You don't bother to listen.
Quote: cmc0605Otherwise, don't attack the science, or the integrity of scientists!!
Well, you attacked the integrity of the opposing Nobel Laureate (instead of listening to his/her arguments), so what's good for the goose...
Quote: cmc0605if I can get just one person someday to say "hey, maybe I'll read this scientific report and re-examine what FOX news told me" then I consider it a success, even after 20 wasted efforts.
Maybe that will happen someday when you start reading opposing points of view (i.e., the opposing Nobel Laureate) rather than arrogantly dismissing them.
Quote: cmc0605Is it too much to ask that the person on here gives me his arguments in their words?
You never gave the member a chance. You were too busy attacking the Nobel Laureate and everyone else who disagrees with you. Pretty bold for someone who's still a student.
Quote: Beethoven9thYou never gave the member a chance. You were too busy attacking the Nobel Laureate and everyone else who disagrees with you. Pretty bold for someone who's still a student.
His article linked to 10 people who didn't believe in climate change, the name he picked out asserted it was an orthodoxy. Apologies if I don't have much in the way of a rebuttal.
Quote: Beethoven9thWell, you attacked the integrity of the opposing Nobel Laureate (instead of listening to his/her arguments), so what's good for the goose...
Do you mean the Nobel Laureate physicist whose argument began and ended with "GLOBAL WARMING = RELIGION"?
Quote: cmc0605His article linked to 10 people who didn't believe in climate change, the name he picked out asserted it was an orthodoxy. Apologies if I don't have much in the way of a rebuttal.
I don't recall you asking for an argument. But I do recall you launching into a personal attack as if the Nobel Laureate was somehow beneath you.
Quote: 24BingoDo you mean the Nobel Laureate physicist whose argument began and ended with "GLOBAL WARMING = RELIGION"?
I know, I know. You're gonna say that physics is ethically dissimilar to.....ah, forget it. lol
Science has determined that free will does not exist and we follow a series of actions set out by our subconscious.
Free will is an illusion.
Your post is too short (minimum 5 characters).
Quote: boymimboI'm wondering if cmc expects an actual and intelligent debate on climate change on a gambling forum. I certainly don't.
There's no link to an article called "1,000 most respected global-warming believers." Even most of the people on that list believe in anthropogenic climate change but think that the magnitude is smaller or that we are being too alarmist.
The magnitude of climate change *is* up for debate because computer models are being updated and climate change is an inexact science due to the incredible complexity of the planet. What do do about climate change *is* also out for debate because that's a lively political exercise.
To claim that there is no climate change due to us living on this planet when the objective science clearly demonstrates otherwise is plainly moronic. Of course, you're welcome to believe otherwise.
So the original post is out there. Is climate change a hoax, and if so, prove it. Show the equations that prove (1) that all of the CO2 being emitted by humans has no effect on the concentration of the atmospheric CO2, and (2) that increased CO2 in the atmosphere has no effect whatsoever on the climate.
Heck, you might win a Nobel Prize.
And, go.
I respect your views and appreciate your posts on the subject. I would wish main proponents for those calling for action regarding AGW would take similar approaches, but instead we tend to get a lot of alarmist propaganda saying we're all going to die unless we do a carbon tax now, which incidentally is what a New Jersey Senate candidate just made an ad for: Google "'MILLIONS WILL DIE' without a carbon tax to fix global warming, says a New Jersey U.S. Senate candidate in hysterical online campaign ad".
For the record, I feel climate will change regardless if humans were on the planet or not- that's what it's been shown to do over history. I also believe what humans do can affect climate, although I doubt our affects are anywhere near what the alarmists are saying so I question the "bang for the buck". Sure, we can do things to make ourselves feel better although many times there are unintended consequences of such actions that are conveniently left out of the process. Sure, we can implement a carbon tax but what about China and India and the net effect on the planet?
What frustrates a lot of us is the (surprise!) money grab that's always at the end of it and the reduction/elimination of our choices.
For people who really believe that catastrophe will happen, why not publicly state 5 consequences that will happen if "we keep on our current path" WITH TIMEFRAMES and what you would do to fix it?
With CFCs, the consequences were known and the effects were beginning to be seen with the ozone hole in Antarctica and the increased rates of skin cancer worldwide. The Montreal protocol was signed in the 80s and then were strenghtened. As a result ALL coolants in the western world and most of the developing world too are no longer CFC based. It was a great example of the world governments working together to avert a major and known oncoming disaster.
With climate change, the consequences are longish term, are regional, and also are within a range of possibilities. We know that sea levels are rising but the range of estimates range from a minor headache to a major catastrophe. We know that climates are changing but don't know for certainty the magnitude of those changes. The reason that the world can't come to an agreement is due to the uncertainties and due to the different costs that will be borne by each nation. In particular, the US can't come to a course of action due to political gridlock even though the effects on each region of the US due to climate change has been quantified.
Canada does nothing because the price of oil is a major contributor to Alberta's success and our prime minister's reelection based on his finance minister's ability to match budget targets to actuals.
Paying lip service to alternative energy sources (solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, hydrogen) pleases the greenies and isn't terribly expensive compared to a national or state budget.
Doing nothing is a viable alternative too.
----------------
Still waiting for the nobel prize winning writeup...
As Evenbob likes to say, [crickets]
Quote: TheBigPaybak...instead we tend to get a lot of alarmist propaganda saying we're all going to die unless we do a carbon tax now, which incidentally is what a New Jersey Senate candidate just made an ad for: Google "'MILLIONS WILL DIE' without a carbon tax to fix global warming, says a New Jersey U.S. Senate candidate in hysterical online campaign ad".
+1
What I really dislike is when people come here acting like big shots. And instead of having a substantive debate, they'd rather compare themselves to top mathematicians while comparing their opponents to 1st graders. (That just shows little class, IMHO)
Quote: cmc0605It's always remarkable to see the number of people who know better than the scientific community but I'm quite sure will never publish and claim their nobel prize for overturning a century of established physics. It's also remarkable that people think finding some nobel prize winner in an unrelated field is some sort of argument against the conclusions of modern atmospheric physics. I'm not sure where this confidence comes from. Have any of you ever went to a climate science meeting? Have you ever read a report on detection & attribution of climate change? Why should anyone listen to your wisdom?
I thought that as a scientist you did research. Ivar Giaever won his prize in physics. I certainly hope that is not your field since by your own words you are no longer able to comment on climate change because your credentials are in another field. Ivar showed the strength of his convictions by resigning from the American Physical Society because of their closed view on climate change. He will be one of the last to do anything like that however. The way dissenters are vilified by their peers now these heretics are unlikely to be allowed into the old boys club in the future.Be careful when you follow the masses, the M is sometimes silent.
However, I will give you a nice link for the other side, since no one on the other side of the issue has bothered to do the research to find it.
Read, and discuss.
Quote: boymimboMr. Giaever is 84 years old and won his Nobel Prize in 1973. How many of the other 40 Physics nobel prize winners since 1973 have the same beliefs?
However, I will give you a nice link for the other side, since no one on the other side of the issue has bothered to do the research to find it.
Read, and discuss.
And here is a statistical analysis of scientific papers' positions on global warming.
Punchline: roughly one-third of the ~12,000 relevant scientific papers written in the past 20 years attribute global warming to human activity, while two-thirds express no opinion. Of the papers that do express an opinion on the attribution of global warming, 97% attribute it to human activity while 3% dispute that.
Quote:Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
GW is a wascally fooler, thank god I'm a scientist and
know what's going on.
Quote: EvenBob53 right now at 9:40 AM. It never got above 62 yesterday.
GW is a wascally fooler, thank god I'm a scientist and
know what's going on.
Phoenix temps have risen slightly in last 30 years simply due to the "heat dome" effect. The official temp gauge is at Sky Harbor airport which is the geographic center of the Valley of the Sun. Population has nearly tripled in the valley the last 30 years. Huge growth. More and more asphalt and concrete holding the heat in..... hence nights are not cooling off like they did back in the day. I suspect that this scenario is playing out at reporting stations around the world. The ice is melting! Run away! Head for the hills!
Quote: treetopbuddyI'm a scientist too
Which one of you guys invented the internet? :-)
Quote: 1BBWhich one of you guys invented the internet? :-)
Not me.....my work has centered around the melting polar ice caps. The ice is melting! Run away! Head for the hills!
Quote: boymimboMr. Giaever is 84 years old and won his Nobel Prize in 1973. How many of the other 40 Physics nobel prize winners since 1973 have the same beliefs?
However, I will give you a nice link for the other side, since no one on the other side of the issue has bothered to do the research to find it.
Read, and discuss.
Yes Mr. Giaever is 84 and therefore must be irrelevant now, similar to another older and deader sceintist Albert Einstein. Here is a link to an interview with him from the 1994 Nobel Laureates meetings so you can see what a raving lunatic he is, mind you the interiew is almost 10 years ago so it is pretty much meaningless too. INTERVIEW
Near the end of the interview he even has 'SOME ADVICE FOR STUDENTS'. I am sure that advice will taken to heart by some of our student posters.
Isaac Newton was a sungazer and an alchemist, and no, those ideas weren't any more respected in his time. You don't have to be a walking cartoon to hold a crazy belief. Your argument is meaningless.
Many of the same players from the 1970s are involved in the "global warming" cough cough cough, I meant to say "climate change" these days. In the past few years we've had to change it to "climate change" so that we can account for the parts of the world that too cold.
For what it's worth, I really believe that we are probably in a warming period, and that it's getting cooler in relation to when it was once much warmer.
-Keyser
If you took the time to actually read Ivars opinion you would find that he doesn't actually claim to disagree with AGW his position is same as mine and several of the other posters. He disagreement was with the idea that the science is done and that no other explanations can possibly be right. He likely even agrees with the idea that AGW is probably the best theory with what we know currently. His point and the reason he resigned is because anyone that disagrees is now ostrasized by the community rather than working towards understanding their points and trying to disprove them or alternately working those ideas into the current model.
