Glacier alarm 'regrettable error': UN climate head

[iloveboxcars]

soup, when did you go from scuba diving to being an architect exactly?

[lord_casek]

Nuclear power is still an option. Lots of breakthroughs in the recent years. Waste eating bacteria

is a reality.

[MAR]

Yes, but considering no scientist is payed to agree with any other scientist, the fact that 90% of earth scientists believe there is a climate change and 80% believe it's man made is a substantial worldly concensus which believes man-made global warming is real.

 

Those are some interesting numbers, I wonder how they took that census.

[Soup]

soup, when did you go from scuba diving to being an architect exactly?

 

I worked at a dive shop for 3 months. I've been eating and breathing architecture for over 2 years.

 

And mar there's been many many surveys and studies within the scientific community on this. Im not sure how they go about it but I can guess that all earth scientists are apart the same newsletter.

 

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-01/uoia-ssa011609.php

[Zig]

There is no personal gain for a scientist to agree with another scientist about global warming except EVERY SINGLE ONE IN THE WORLD DOES.

 

just from today,

 

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/04/climate-change-scientific-consensus-cloudy-as-ever/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/feb/07/climate-scepticism-grows-tories

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/01/china-still-not-convinced-climate-change-man.php

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/11ae3c78-0c76-11df-a941-00144feabdc0.html

 

Every time a global warming conspiracy tin-foil hat bullshit thread gets thoroughly debunked in crossfire, a new one pops up.

 

the only thing being debunked is man-made global warming, obvious enough from the wikileaks climategate information. the fact that you call everyone tinfoil hat wearers says enough for me to understand your angle on everything.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

This from the guy trying to dispute scientific consensus...remember that the entire scientific community is more educated than you on these matters.

 

I've posted this before, but try this "Collapse" instead:

 

 

I'll check it out.

 

He's not just one man. The information he gets and uses is not created by himself.

 

I don't see where you are going with that. I have also posted several different articles that are similar in nature to his opinion. Which again is based off of information that he collects. He does not conduct experiments or does studies.

 

At least I am not aware that he does. He is an investigative journalist.

 

I also am fully aware that I am not an expert. Nor have I ever claimed to be. So constantly reminding me or bringing this up as some sort of defense, really isn't necessary. I have not received an education on most of these matters besides what you normally would learn through various different science courses you take through out your life.

 

Do you have any such credentials? Because if not than you are sitting pretty much where I am and are just trying to base conclusions off of the information that you receive.

 

I have also constantly reminded you guys of the fact that the "consensus" among scientist's in the 70's was that we were going to be heading into another Ice Age. The Earth was to be covered in Ice.

 

Now we're going to turn the planet into a giant waste land due to over heating. The Glacier's are going to melt, the oceans will rise. Entire specie's are going to be wiped off the mat, disease will spread, famines will occur.

 

I mean all of this stuff sounds just about as crazy to me as Alien's landing on Earth, and using tin foil hat's to stop them from reading your mind.

 

Kind of funny isn't it.

 

Yeah, and those percentages that you(Soup) keep throwing out, do you have any real data to support those claims? Or is that your overall assumption on how things sit. I'm pretty sure it's the latter.

[Mercer]

Anyone who thinks millions and millions of cubic meters of man made co2 hitting the atmosphere every second isn't going to effect the climate is naive at best.

[Soup]

just from today,

 

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/04/climate-change-scientific-consensus-cloudy-as-ever/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/feb/07/climate-scepticism-grows-tories

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/01/china-still-not-convinced-climate-change-man.php

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/11ae3c78-0c76-11df-a941-00144feabdc0.html

 

 

 

the only thing being debunked is man-made global warming, obvious enough from the wikileaks climategate information. the fact that you call everyone tinfoil hat wearers says enough for me to understand your angle on everything.

 

Blogs? You posted... blogs? ALSO from today:

 

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/wa-drought-is-proof-of-climate-change-20100208-nl52.html

http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/201002/s2813038.htm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-gershon/empowering-a-climate-chan_b_452825.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/27/AR2010012704502.html?hpid=sec-business

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_14349470

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2810491220100128?type=marketsNews

http://www.examiner.com/x-6503-Ft-Lauderdale-Science-News-Examiner~y2010m2d4-

Nobody has debunked anything you dolt. Any inquiries into data of man-made climate change data have amounted NOTHING to prove it's faked or wrong.

also from today Dr-Michael-Mann-cleared-of-tweaking-climate-change-data-second-inquiry-on-the-way

[russell jones]

I'll check it out.

At least I am not aware that he does. He is an investigative journalist.

 

 

Diamond is a professor of physiology and geography, a scientist in other words.

[Mercer]

Here is my non scientific global warming theory,

 

Since the vast majority of scientist think man made climate change clearly exists,

but 50% of the public thinks that millions of cubic meters of man made Co2 being released every minute has no effect on the atmosphere.

 

I'm guessing 50% people just believe what they want to believe and are clearly in denial.

Clinging to the smallest bits of evidence they can find that the obvious isn't a reality.

 

 

Giving up massive overconsumption in the west is like asking a junkie to stop shooting smack, first step is denial.

God forbid the day they cant just get up from the lazy boy and walk 30 steps into the garage,

then drive everywhere else and bitch if the parking lot is full and their fat lazy ass has to walk 60 seconds.

Everywhere needs a drive through.

 

Over the last century our entire infrastructure has been based on a resource that will become unavailable within a generation or two.

Live it up now because our laziness and love of convenience will destroy all the work the people who put us on top have done.

Our days on top are numbered, we will not avert our downfall or adapt, denial till the bitter end.

[Soup]

Yes, BUT the scope of all this isnt just limited oil and Co2. The entire Keynesian theology that governs the world's economy doesnt take into consideration finite resources of ANY KIND. There is little to nothing that regulates infinite growth in the private sector. In the public, luckily, there is a crapload of beurocracy and regulation so you dont have electric companies infinitely producing more powerplants to sell more and more electricity with no thought to natural resources or the environment. That's not how they turn profits or gains for their shareholders.

 

Everything, from our economics, the way we build buildings and cities, the way we run our businesses, how we live, drive, eat, get around, EVERYTHING needs to be overhauled and the way you do that is you start with human behavior. Everything we do is with respect to the short term. We as a people, community, civilization, species have zero long-term strategy.

[lord_casek]

17,200 Scientists Dispute Global Warming

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/162241/17_200_Scientists_Dispute_Global_Warming

 

But all of them agree that Soup should keep his day job.

[lord_casek]

Here is my non scientific global warming theory,

 

Since the vast majority of scientist think man made climate change clearly exists,

but 50% of the public thinks that millions of cubic meters of man made Co2 being released every minute has no effect on the atmosphere.

 

I'm guessing 50% people just believe what they want to believe and are clearly in denial.

Clinging to the smallest bits of evidence they can find that the obvious isn't a reality.

 

 

Giving up massive overconsumption in the west is like asking a junkie to stop shooting smack, first step is denial.

God forbid the day they cant just get up from the lazy boy and walk 30 steps into the garage,

then drive everywhere else and bitch if the parking lot is full and their fat lazy ass has to walk 60 seconds.

Everywhere needs a drive through.

 

Over the last century our entire infrastructure has been based on a resource that will become unavailable within a generation or two.

Live it up now because our laziness and love of convenience will destroy all the work the people who put us on top have done.

Our days on top are numbered, we will not avert our downfall or adapt, denial till the bitter end.

 

Volcano's put out more than we do. We gonna ban volcano's?

 

"I'm sorry, under mandate from the IPCC you can no longer erupt"

"FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!"

[Mercer]

We cant control that factor and has nothing to do with the point I'm making about us upsetting the natural balance.

So I'm assuming you think we as modern humans don't have a cumulative effect on the atmosphere from that statement.

 

A little more extreme but I'm sure you agree with the laws against murder right?

By that line of thinking more people die from natural disasters and disease than murder.

Should we condone and encourage murder then, we cant pass laws against diseases, old age, and natural disaster can we.

[lord_casek]

We cant control that factor and has nothing to do with the point I'm making about us upsetting the natural balance.

So I'm assuming you think we as modern humans don't have a cumulative effect on the atmosphere from that statement.

 

A little more extreme but I'm sure you agree with the laws against murder right?

By that line of thinking more people die from natural disasters and disease than murder.

Should we condone and encourage murder then, we cant pass laws against diseases, old age, and natural disaster can we.

 

 

I think that the earth has cycles. I think that humans can and have affected the planet, but it's small in scale as compared to what is naturally always occurring.

 

So yeah, I'm not all Princess Moonbeam and her dreadlocked husband Wavy Dave on this shit.

 

I also think a lot of intelligent people have been mislead by what a lot of these "green movements" are propagandizing. We shouldn't be so quick to jump on a bandwagon.

 

As for clean tech: All for it. I don't like the noise pollution caused by wind, but solar and nuclear I'm for. Also like the ideas floating around about next generation automobiles.

[lord_casek]

We cant control that factor and has nothing to do with the point I'm making about us upsetting the natural balance.

So I'm assuming you think we as modern humans don't have a cumulative effect on the atmosphere from that statement.

 

A little more extreme but I'm sure you agree with the laws against murder right?

By that line of thinking more people die from natural disasters and disease than murder.

Should we condone and encourage murder then, we cant pass laws against diseases, old age, and natural disaster can we.

 

 

Something else came to mind. The other day I read an article about top scientists suggesting setting off volcanic eruptions (by inducing them with high explosives) to

put more shit in the atmosphere and block out the sun.

 

The U.S. govt is also experimenting with lacing the atmosphere with substances. Nano

particles of metals and minerals. Already some talk about using it to block out some of the sun.

 

And not to get all "conspiracy theory" on you, but we can now manipulate the weather

http://www.fas.org/news/usa/1997/04/bmd970429d.htm

 

Yes, that's proof.

 

Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and U.S. Strategy

Sam Nunn Policy Forum

April 28, 1997 University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.

[Zig]

well i'm actually half and half on this, i don't disbelieve that our climate is changing for the worse and that there are real environmental issues that we need to become aware of and make progression towards fixing, but at the same time i also understand that the solutions being posed seem to be more about money and social control rather than actually solving any real problems.

 

but then to say that EVERY scientist is in a consensus on global warming is also false. there is so much information about climate change coming from different angles, there isn't really a consensus on anything other then our planet's climate is changing at an accelerated rate and it could endanger us. whether it is man-made, the sun causing this, etc. is debatable.

 

Something else came to mind. The other day I read an article about top scientists suggesting setting off volcanic eruptions (by inducing them with high explosives) to

put more shit in the atmosphere and block out the sun.

 

The U.S. govt is also experimenting with lacing the atmosphere with substances. Nano

particles of metals and minerals. Already some talk about using it to block out some of the sun.

 

And not to get all "conspiracy theory" on you, but we can now manipulate the weather

http://www.fas.org/news/usa/1997/04/bmd970429d.htm

 

Yes, that's proof.

 

Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and U.S. Strategy

Sam Nunn Policy Forum

April 28, 1997 University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.

 

then you have the same governments posing solutions involved in activities that could be instigating the problems to an extent that isn't capable of someone like me or you in our house with fluorescent light bulbs and air conditioners, yet they want to tax us for the air we breathe so it's kind of ludicrous and hypocritical.

[Soup]

Mercer we can change the weather, not control it.

[Soup]

17,200 Scientists Dispute Global Warming

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/162241/17_200_Scientists_Dispute_Global_Warming

 

But all of them agree that Soup should keep his day job.

 

PIPE DOWN MIDGET. They're disputing details about global warming, not global warming itself. READ THE ARTICLE.

And my whole stance isnt that global warming is man made or not, bceause the end result is the exact fucking same: Natural recourses are being exhausted, air pollution is skyrocketing, arable land is being depleted, top soil is being depleted, open space is being depleted, water is becoming scarce and too expensive to pump around, food is becoming too diseased/loaded up with antibiotics, average lifespan is declining, the future is everyone living in cities and no city is built for that, the economy is reliant on infinite use of finite materials and we need to change our infrastructure/behaviors accordingly. Got it? Cool.

[Mainframe]

I'll check it out.

 

He's not just one man. The information he gets and uses is not created by himself.

 

I don't see where you are going with that. I have also posted several different articles that are similar in nature to his opinion. Which again is based off of information that he collects. He does not conduct experiments or does studies.

 

At least I am not aware that he does. He is an investigative journalist.

 

Jared Diamond is a geography professor at UCLA and an accomplished author. He is not an investigative journalist. The book Collapse contains historical examples of societies that have failed directly due to poor ecological management. It's very well researched and it doesn't really have any political agenda; it's an impressive synthesis of information from several related fields. It also shows very convincingly the level of impact human societies can have on our ecosystem.

 

I also am fully aware that I am not an expert. Nor have I ever claimed to be. So constantly reminding me or bringing this up as some sort of defense, really isn't necessary. I have not received an education on most of these matters besides what you normally would learn through various different science courses you take through out your life.

 

I'm merely pointing out that it's absurd and rather stupid to have a strong opinion on something of this nature without any personal expertise. It's fine to question the information you get from mass media, which tends toward fear-mongering and politicizing the subject, however this does not change the research that is being done across the world. Doing your own internet research is VERY misleading, for reasons that should be obvious to you.

 

Do you have any such credentials? Because if not than you are sitting pretty much where I am and are just trying to base conclusions off of the information that you receive.

 

Well I have a B.S. in Physics/Environmental Studies so I suppose I am more qualified than you to speak on this subject. I wouldn't consider myself an 'expert', but I grew up around scientists and regularly talk to people who are doing research related to climate change. Everyone draws some kind of conclusion based on "information that you receive" however I understand that some people (i.e. experts) receive greater volumes of better information. In the scientific community there are certainly dissenters (as there always are and should be) and some aspects of climate change are uncertain, but overall the science is considered very very good.

 

I have also constantly reminded you guys of the fact that the "consensus" among scientist's in the 70's was that we were going to be heading into another Ice Age. The Earth was to be covered in Ice.

 

Now we're going to turn the planet into a giant waste land due to over heating. The Glacier's are going to melt, the oceans will rise. Entire specie's are going to be wiped off the mat, disease will spread, famines will occur.

 

I have yet to see anything suggesting this '70s Ice Age scare' is actually comparable to what's going on today with global warming. Doomsday scenarios aren't really what this is all about anyway. The point is that as global population burgeons humankind needs to become more in tune with our impact on the ecosystem. Things are changing and it is vital to come up with sustainable energy alternatives and manage our resources much better.

[Mainframe]

the only thing being debunked is man-made global warming, obvious enough from the wikileaks climategate information. the fact that you call everyone tinfoil hat wearers says enough for me to understand your angle on everything.

 

Why don't you read the other threads? Climategate didn't prove shit. I'm just exasperated with the level of willful ignorance on this subject.

[Zig]

Why don't you read the other threads? Climategate didn't prove shit. I'm just exasperated with the level of willful ignorance on this subject.

 

for one because i only recently started posting here, so why would i go back and dig up old threads. this is a new thread about the subject, so i'm voicing my opinions here.

 

second of all climate gate proved that scientists were willing to suppress data that didn't support their consensus on global warming, and were going far enough to even exaggerate data through manipulation. it's interesting to me that when these things occur, instead of taking them into account you consciously reject it and claim it "means nothing" or has been "debunked" or isn't true. that always seems to be the case regardless of how things turn out, people on your side of the debate don't ever seem to be willing to admit to certain data, but are more then willing to throw the data in support of your side of the argument in everyone's faces with arrogance. you have to take all things into consideration, and if climate gate "didn't mean shit" then copenhagen would have probably went a lot smoother then it did now wouldn't it.

[lord_casek]

Lead scientist for IPCC admitted contemplating suicide after the docs came out

[Mainframe]

second of all climate gate proved that scientists were willing to suppress data that didn't support their consensus on global warming, and were going far enough to even exaggerate data through manipulation.

 

It did not prove that "scientists" are willing to falsify data, it suggested that a few specific scientists may have tampered with some data, but it is unclear what exactly was tampered with and what their goals were in doing so. Climate gate provided an open-ended scandal that was taken by many skeptics as total vindication of their own position. Massive assumptions were ascribed to rather meager information.

 

it's interesting to me that when these things occur, instead of taking them into account you consciously reject it and claim it "means nothing" or has been "debunked" or isn't true.

 

As I indicated, if you look at the climategate thread I already explained my position on this. I can confidently say that I have taken this information into account and find it unimportant. It's mostly just unfortunate that it muddles things for overzealous skeptics like yourself.

 

that always seems to be the case regardless of how things turn out, people on your side of the debate don't ever seem to be willing to admit to certain data, but are more then willing to throw the data in support of your side of the argument in everyone's faces with arrogance. you have to take all things into consideration, and if climate gate "didn't mean shit" then copenhagen would have probably went a lot smoother then it did now wouldn't it.

 

Well, if you're going to consider an educated opinion "arrogance" then we can end this discussion right now. I think I can say that I am the one being more objective here. Try getting your information from somewhere besides whatever-your-agenda-is internet blogs. As of yet I have no reason to think you are capable of this, but by all means surprise me.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

Jared Diamond is a geography professor at UCLA and an accomplished author. He is not an investigative journalist. The book Collapse contains historical examples of societies that have failed directly due to poor ecological management. It's very well researched and it doesn't really have any political agenda; it's an impressive synthesis of information from several related fields. It also shows very convincingly the level of impact human societies can have on our ecosystem.

 

Again Ruppert isn't doing studies. He is seeking out information. Reading, studying than interpreting these things, and writing about them.

 

As I said in my previous post. I have posted numerous articles from many people(some who are certainly qualified scientist's and others who just speak on issue's such as these) who disagree with this supposed, "unanimous consensus". I am also not aware or have not picked up on any political agenda this man might have. If you have noticed something I am unaware of about Ruppert, which would make me not trust his opinion please point it out to me.

 

I also said I would check the book out. I am always open to all viewpoints.

 

I'm merely pointing out that it's absurd and rather stupid to have a strong opinion on something of this nature without any personal expertise. It's fine to question the information you get from mass media, which tends toward fear-mongering and politicizing the subject, however this does not change the research that is being done across the world. Doing your own internet research is VERY misleading, for reasons that should be obvious to you.

 

I don't think it's absurd if you have done research on the subject. I don't believe you have to be an expert to have an opinion on any subject. Sure, your opinion may not be as relevant because of your lack of personal experience or just overall knowledge but when an issue most likely will affect you directly, I think trying to educate yourself about said matters and being aware of it are extremely important.

 

Well I have a B.S. in Physics/Environmental Studies so I suppose I am more qualified than you to speak on this subject. I wouldn't consider myself an 'expert', but I grew up around scientists and regularly talk to people who are doing research related to climate change. Everyone draws some kind of conclusion based on "information that you receive" however I understand that some people (i.e. experts) receive greater volumes of better information. In the scientific community there are certainly dissenters (as there always are and should be) and some aspects of climate change are uncertain, but overall the science is considered very very good.

 

I would say most not some aspects of climate change are uncertain. The complexity of the system that is our environment is not to be underestimated. Predicting the weather is difficult enough as it is. Let alone accurately predicting what exactly will happen on a global scale within the next 50-100 years.

 

The B.S. is impressive, so I would say you most definitely are more qualified than I am.

 

I have yet to see anything suggesting this '70s Ice Age scare' is actually comparable to what's going on today with global warming. Doomsday scenarios aren't really what this is all about anyway. The point is that as global population burgeons humankind needs to become more in tune with our impact on the ecosystem. Things are changing and it is vital to come up with sustainable energy alternatives and manage our resources much better.

 

The doomsday scenario has nothing really to do with it. At least that is not why I really brought it up.

 

I bring it up because it was considered widely by a lot of experts at that time that this was going to happen, and they were completely off I would say. I'm sure technology has improved immensely since the 70's. So I'm sure our ability to obtain valid data is a lot better.

 

Please don't take this disagreement with the fact that I do not think that we shouldn't make improvements on how we treat the planet that we live on.

 

I am in full agreement about evolving onto newer, cleaner more renewable forms of energy. I also support a few other idea's that are being promoted.

 

I'm just saying that getting off using fossil fuels completely is not going to be as smooth as is being suggested in here. Nor is it even a realisitic option at this point in time.

 

I'm also against a lot of laws and overall policy on certain issue's pertaining to the environment.

[Zig]

It did not prove that "scientists" are willing to falsify data, it suggested that a few specific scientists may have tampered with some data, but it is unclear what exactly was tampered with and what their goals were in doing so. Climate gate provided an open-ended scandal that was taken by many skeptics as total vindication of their own position. Massive assumptions were ascribed to rather meager information.

 

 

 

As I indicated, if you look at the climategate thread I already explained my position on this. I can confidently say that I have taken this information into account and find it unimportant. It's mostly just unfortunate that it muddles things for overzealous skeptics like yourself.

 

 

 

Well, if you're going to consider an educated opinion "arrogance" then we can end this discussion right now. I think I can say that I am the one being more objective here. Try getting your information from somewhere besides whatever-your-agenda-is internet blogs. As of yet I have no reason to think you are capable of this, but by all means surprise me.

 

well, i wouldn't necessarily categorize myself as an overzealous skeptic. if i'm skeptical, it's of the solutions posed towards any environmental issues we are facing, i'm not necessarily skeptical of the concept that we have serious environmental issues that we have to take care of rapidly because our situation is drastic.

 

as for getting my information from somewhere besides whatever-your-agenda-is internet blogs, let's discuss that briefly. i will admit that i do tend to gravitate towards websites that support my personal perspective, but that doesn't mean i don't cross spectrums. realistically, this is the information age. you can find information supporting whatever paradigm it is you want to jump into, so to come off like THIS information is more valid then THIS information is a little ridiculous. we could sit here and post articles from all over the internet from official or unofficial sources supporting both sides of the climate gate issue, or even the entire global warming/climate change debate. there is endless amounts of information out there, that's why i would much rather prefer a discussion instead of a contest on who's information is more valid.

 

now, without really making this thread into a thread about climate gate... i just would like to raise this one issue and get clarification. you're coming off like it was only a few specific scientists who tampered with data, like this is just an unimportant issue that happened upon a whim, but am i mistaken in saying that wasn't this coming from one of the main sources behind the whole global warming consensus. so in essence it would be like the headquarters of the entire global warming theory, sending e-mails back and forth to each other about manipulating and suppressing data that didn't coincide with their theory.

 

i'm sorry to put it into simplistic terms like that.

 

on the other hand, i do agree that severe climate change and environmental issues are occurring and we do have to take preventive measures to make significant changes. i personally believe though that there is an abundance of alternative methodologies we could pursue towards changing the way society consumes and operates, however i also understand that greed and power block those methods from being pursued by free humanity. that is my personal opinion, and i hope it isn't too GENERAL of an idea which needs to be explained with citations and what not. hopefully, you just get what i'm saying.

[russell jones]

17,200 Scientists Dispute Global Warming

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/162241/17_200_Scientists_Dispute_Global_Warming

 

But all of them agree that Soup should keep his day job.

 

Is there a technical term that means "throwing the baby out with the bath water?"

[Mainframe]

as for getting my information from somewhere besides whatever-your-agenda-is internet blogs, let's discuss that briefly. i will admit that i do tend to gravitate towards websites that support my personal perspective, but that doesn't mean i don't cross spectrums. realistically, this is the information age. you can find information supporting whatever paradigm it is you want to jump into, so to come off like THIS information is more valid then THIS information is a little ridiculous. we could sit here and post articles from all over the internet from official or unofficial sources supporting both sides of the climate gate issue, or even the entire global warming/climate change debate. there is endless amounts of information out there, that's why i would much rather prefer a discussion instead of a contest on who's information is more valid.

 

I see what you're saying, but the problem with the internet is that it gives every dumb-ass a voice. It is very difficult to accurately gauge something like broad scientific consensus when some of the most outspoken, visible opinions (i.e. Glenn Beck) are also the most poorly informed and agenda-driven. If you go read some books about climate change and talk to researchers you are absolutely getting more valid information on the subject. Honestly I sort of feel like I'm arguing calculus with people who never passed algebra and think they know more than me...that's not totally directed at you.

 

you're coming off like it was only a few specific scientists who tampered with data, like this is just an unimportant issue that happened upon a whim, but am i mistaken in saying that wasn't this coming from one of the main sources behind the whole global warming consensus. so in essence it would be like the headquarters of the entire global warming theory, sending e-mails back and forth to each other about manipulating and suppressing data that didn't coincide with their theory.

 

Yes, you are mistaken. There is not a "headquarters" to the entire global warming theory. Scientific consensus refers to broad, multidisciplinary agreement about a result that is supported by large amounts of research data. Scientific research is done in such a way that it wouldn't really be possible to manufacture a false consensus. You can't pull the wool over the eyes of people who work with the raw information almost every day. However, what is reported in the media is of course often skewed and blown out of proportion. This is perhaps where most of your skepticism comes from.

 

Also, I still haven't seen anything that really shows that these East Anglia scientists were even manipulating and suppressing data. As far as I can tell a big stink was made about some very vague information. To paraphrase a biologist I spoke to about this, it's really too bad this brought so much bad publicity, because the science behind global warming is still very good. Don't just be skeptical for the sake of skepticism.

 

on the other hand, i do agree that severe climate change and environmental issues are occurring and we do have to take preventive measures to make significant changes. i personally believe though that there is an abundance of alternative methodologies we could pursue towards changing the way society consumes and operates, however i also understand that greed and power block those methods from being pursued by free humanity. that is my personal opinion.

 

Well, yeah, but I think you're overeager to dissent and your desire to find fault with the government spills over into other subjects. Climate change is a very complex subject, to be sure. It's hard to say what the best path is.

[russell jones]

This website has clear and concise arguments refuting the most commonly AGW skeptic arguments:

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

[Soup]

Also, http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct2=us%2F0_0_s_1_0_t&usg=AFQjCNEppfdas02V-C68txFPs0eoCsVDWA&sig2=m27TM8VcWxdtdAVXULqNPg&cid=8797493494684&ei=D55zS4CIJ436lQTw3YypAw&rt=SEARCH&vm=STANDARD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thediplomat.ro%2Farticol.php%3Fid%3D817

 

that was something i forgot to mention when i was replying to that video: We can make gasoline out of algae and it burns clean.