Originally Posted by cmitch
Okay, we have a 'problem,'. if it can be construed as a 'problem', but I'll go with it for now. It is called climate change and yes, it is occurring. Okay, we can most agree with that statement. Now, we must determine the reason or cause for this climate change we are experiencing.
So called evidence presented so far by a 'concensus of scientists' is that this climate change is a man made cause. Has any of these scientists even attempted to 'prove' that it is NOT a man made cause? You see, if you want to prove something is the way you WANT IT TO BE, you will find 'evidence' and piles of it, to support your claim, because you are biased and want to lean in that direction. Now for those scientists who believe as I do, that it is NOT a man made cause, but rather a natural trend that will reverse itself, just as it has in years past (One most recent example:the dust bowl of the 30's with record droughts and then record floods and ice storms/ snows that occurred decades later), then they are to do the same. They are to gather evidence to prove that it is NOT a man made cause and such evidence to prove this 'biased' opinion must also be presented in a responsible manner to maintain a scientific balance. However, this is not happening at all, here! These thousands of scientists who gather at these seminars and conferences that hold the media's attention, do not wish to allow the opposing view to formulate their own opinions of cause and effect.
As I mentioned Richard Alley and John Christy, McBear, who I do not entirely agree with but, I respect, readily embraced the work of Richard Alley but, quite oddly, did not mention or acknowledge John Christy's opposing view that climate change is a natural occurrance. John Christy is just as educated and knowledgeable as Mr, Alley, but Mr. Christy's ideas do not fit the mold that these 'mainstream' scientists and their media counterparts wish to impress upon the common man. So he is shouted down and not allowed to attend forums and conferences to present his opposing views. It is quite obvious that both of these men are knowledgeable scientists, but why is Alley's and other's 'science' more important than the science of Mr. Christy. We all already know the answer to that.
Al Gore just won an Oscar for a film, 'An Inconvenient Truth'. The title, in the movie itself, is biased, because it promotes the idea that all the information in this documentary is 'The Truth'. That, in itself, is totally scientifically irresponsible to promote what we all can agree is just a theory, as the truth. That makes the film a 'crockermentary'. A true documentary would present all evidences, not just a lop sided view as to what these evidences mean. And if Al Gore believed all of what he is promoting, he, himself, would dispose of his hipocracy at once, and live like he proposes we all live. But that, in itself, would be inconvenient to him, because he doesn't want to follow the same rules he wishes to impose on the common man. He is above that and all you have to do to see him for what he is, is to not listen to what he says, BUT TO WATCH WHAT HE DOES!! Al needs to sell his 8,000 sq. ft home in Nashville and move into a simple dwelling like I and most americans have. He has no children at home. What the hell does HE need 3 houses for?? Live and practice what you preach, Mr. Gore. But, that is not the liberal way, I guess.
If those of you and these scientists that believe Global Warming is a man made cause, then present your evidence outside of a panic, gloom and doom platform and quit proposing fixes to what we are not sure of is a problem. Clean the air for the right reasons!! I am NOT opposed to cleaner air. We should all strive to emit less pollutants (20 years ago, I would have burned a tire on a brush pile, I wouldn't even consider it now!). We all can do our part by buying newer, cleaner autos (which most of us here have already done) and increase the energy efficiency of our homes. these are simple fixes that can be done on our own without mandates from half baked government officials and politicians.
As for the scientists who are frothing at the mouth to hop on the Man Made Climate Change bandwagon, REMEMBER PILTDOWN MAN!!
I didn't finish reading Christy's papers as it was late and frankly after I found out that most of his funding came from the oil industry I was less interested in his "objectivity", much like the tobacco funded scientists here at UK in the last 30 years swearing that tobacco has no links to cancer.
Now regarding your charges that scientists only "prove" what they want and you ask "Has [sic]any of these scientists even attempted to 'prove' that it is NOT a man made cause?" That is the heart of Scientific Method. You look at evidence, develop a theory and try your best to poke holes in it.
I find it funny you bring up Piltdown Man as a way to lessen the credibility of the work of scientists. The reality is scientists did their job with Piltdown Man. Evidence was collected, a theory [in 1912, before carbon dating] was drawn and for the next 40 years [with time off for two World Wars] scientists looked at the data, poked holes and in the 1950's declared it false. That is how science works.
As for presenting evidence outside of a "Gloom and doom platform", look at the science journals for the past 25 years. The evidence has been published, republished and gone through again and again. It is only now, with PR
from the likes of Gore and Hollywood that the Media has given it any airtime. Don't blame the scientists for that. Do the research, it has been growing, worldwide for a quarter century. Earth Day, the day of awareness for the growing problems of our ecosystem started in 1970. The media hoopla is only a couple of years old. You have a lot of catching up to do.