Duke,
"Oh God!!!!! Michael Jackson just might be innocent folks!!"
Don't know and don't care.
"I was trying to show one scientists point of view when i had words foced down my throat."
I don't think anyone here was forcing any words on you. I would like to know what show your talking about though.
Cableguy,
"it seems the very arguments for bashing the folks at
http://www.junkscience.com can, in fact, be used for "discrediting" anyone with any scientific theory"
That is correct in the scientific community. Someone comes up with an idea, studies it, and then writes it up in a scientific journal for their peers to review. Others become interested, pro or con, and then study it themselves and then write up their findings for others to review. And so on. This is the scientific process. The "evidence" will eventually build so that a "consensus" can be reached. Sometimes the consensus is right and sometimes wrong.
I can remember 30 or 40 years ago when global warming was first proposed, that it had very few adherents. The consensus was that man could do little to change the climate. But in that time scientists from all over the world and in lots of different fields of study began to come around to believing that man could alter the climate. We now know the processes and can replicate these on computer or in the lab. Peer review is really a pretty good thing. It helps to weed out the good from the bad.
And thats the problem with your website. It claims to be scientific but it is not. I tried to follow several references and found that they all came back to the same place, a "thinktank" in Virginia whos only purpose is political, not scientific.
"i stated that ones position on "global warming" is more a result of ones starting premise than on anything "scientific"."
This is primarily incorrect. As mentioned above, when this whole idea was initially proposed, there were very few supporters. I personally know several professors that were skeptical 20 years ago but that have now changed their minds. Why? The evidence is now beginning to be overwhelming.
"there are facts, figures, statistical analysis, charts, graphs, and many other things that are called evidentiary that will support EITHER side."
This is also incorrect and this is whats wrong with your website. They come up with all this stuff that looks good to the layman, but it doesn't pass scientific muster. Again, when you try to follow their references they all lead back to the same place, politics. This is exactly what I was saying about, "baffling them with bullshit."
"what is lacking is any proof of any deviation from normalcy, because NOBODY KNOWS WHAT NORMAL SHOULD BE... "
Ice cores, dendrochronology, etc., etc. Nowadays we have good data on what is "normal" for the last 150,000 years or so. Thirty years ago we didn't have that. What we find alarming is that we can now see precisely when this started and what its effects will be if we do not change our behaviors.
"why would a group of self professed scientists suddenly do a 180 on something they were pursuing with so much zeal??? i believe that there is some motivation other than science at work, and therefore question what they say on the basis of the apparent lack of honesty..."
I'm not quite sure who you are referencing here. By "self professed" I'm assuming your talking about Milloy, whom I would not consider to be a scientist (maybe a Christian Scientist). He doesn't have a PhD (I don't want to get into a whole squabble about the definition of scientist but most fields require the PhD to lead a project). As to why the 180, I think that is clear, the evidence from all areas of the world and all different fields of study. Motivation, now thats interesting. Its clear what Milloys motivation is, money and the status quo. He certainly does not have your interests at heart. He only wants you to continue to believe his crap so that you will support his political ambitions. The thousands of scientists that are now supporting the idea of global warming? I can't speak for them all, but I do know this, the most important thing to the scientists I know is their integrity. If they are going to spend years studying something, they want it to be done correctly and they want their word on the subject to be believed. If they start studying something with a preconceived belief, and the opposite turns out to be true, most will say so. Their word means more to them than anything.
"go ahead and hate the oil companies and businesses, but in doing so, please realize that your life would suck without them... alternately, give up everything manufactured using petroleum products or by "big business," whatever the hell that actually is... before you do so, please consider everything you own that fits these categories... most synthetic materials, all plastics, electronic components.... the list simply goes on and on... finally, ask yourself what YOUR motivation is for promoting this agenda that mostly relies on fear and envy and hatred of capitalism..."
Again, this is more of the "baffle em with bullshit" agenda. Most environmentalists do not hate these institutions. We only want them to act more responsibly. We have a problem, potentially a very big one. One that could have devestating effects for our grand children and great grandchildren. Most of us believe that it is "responsible" for us to do what we can to make sure that the warming does not continue and that when they look back at us from a hundred years in the future, they are not cursing us. The vast evidence as we know it today suggests that they will.
