Citizen229 wrote:richyrich wrote:@samriggs - +1
I think Science has to stop, and take a hard look at itself, and how far it has fallen from the "Scientific Method". Originally, there was no room for assumptions or consensus, and any such would have been quickly dismissed and even ridiculed. Since when has an assumption become, and is treated, as a fact ?
To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.
(emphasis mine)
I'm going to hit that dreaded "religion" button, when I say that modern science today needs
more "faith" than actual religion.
(mods, if this offends, please delete)
A field of science based on consensus and not mathematics, is not a science. It is a psuedo-science. The GW field is set on proving it exists and we are the cause. Real science would dictate you prove it exists first, then the cause. When your grants specifically state the goal is to prove it does exist and not IF it exists, your science is now psuedo-science. Is GW a hoax? probably. Could GW be real? probably. With inaccurate or tampered with data to create models that will never be right, it is hard to tell. Most nations who care( the cleanest nations BTW), the first word from their mouth is Tax. That makes me extra suspicious from the start.
Oh, GW is real, for sure. The temperature and CO2 have definitely risen +3C since the beginning of records.
The problem is, it does it approx every 150,000 years. As mentioned, according to the Vostok Ice cores, it has happened 3 times in the past, with CO2 levels just as high, and in one episode it appears temps were even higher than they are now, with nary an internal combustion engine to be seen.
When the Global Warming thing and Al Gore and his PP presentation came out, it was believed CO2 led temperature. But a close analysis of the data from the Ice Core samples quickkly begs the question, "Does CO2 lead temperature,
or does temperature lead CO2?" I wrote a paper about that back in 2002 (I take every Geology course I can that I have the math prerequisites for, math being a weak point in my academic history) and got an A on it, with the comment, "Interesting theory".
Apparently it was, since the scientists doing the REAL work on warming (and the disappearance of species; every episode results in a loss of ~25% of the species on Earth) are beginning to believe from actual empirical data, that temperature does lead CO2.
One person in my area says GW has caused the loss of
FIFTY-TWO PERCENT of life on Earth as of 2 years ago.
Half of all life on Earth is gone?!?!
Well, it's actually 16%, with a RATE of
5.2%. As, so, we fudged the numbers. It's more dramatic that way, right?
BTW, as of 3 years ago, the prediction is for extinction of 22% for this episode. About average for a warming period.
The question is, once the Ice Age begins, what are they going to think then?? Ice Ages eliminate far more life than warming periods. Warming periods only kill off plants, insects and sea life, as a rule. Ice ages kill off mammals as well.
Too bad we aren't going to be around to prove this: I believe GW is in the dying throes, and we have turned the corner. It will take 500 years before this can be proved, so you're just going to have to take my word for it.
Oh, and if you thought catastrophic weather caused by warming was bad, you ain't seen
nothing yet...
