Rex, could you provide a source or two for this? You obviously have sources, so why not share them even if they aren't online?

I find a few things troubling on both sides of this issue. You have some who seem to claim that us not causing global warming is proof that we aren't harming the Earth. It seems to be used as a red herring of sorts, completely ignoring (well it seems more like trying to distract from) habitat destruction and the almost unprecedented destruction of species.

On the other side it seems that anyone that disagrees with the so-called consensus is automatically a "denier" and written off as being industry paid and therefore a liar.

Neither of these have anything to do with science, yet they (especially the latter) make it nearly impossible to actually figure out what the science says. Basically, I've given up with the topic as a whole. I completely agree with this:I wish it wasn't true, but it probably is.

__________________
"We cannot make, nor alter, nor even imitate so much as one blade of grass that He has made, and yet we can make or alter words of God as easily as words of man."
"We cannot serve God in the manner we serve those who cannot do without such service; and, therefore, the only idea we can have of serving God is that of contributing to the happiness of the living creation that God has made." -Thomas Paine

The problem I have is that I have too MANY sources, so it is hard for me to remember where any given one comes from. I access about 20-30 journals and science sites, read about a dozen different newspapers, watch news on 3 different channels, and check a few websites like foxnews.com, periodically. My opening post here, though, is a paraphrase of an article. I'll see if I can find it again, but it could have come from Scientific American or Science Weekly.

I absolutely do believe that we are harming the planet ("we" being the entire species). I am absolutely for doing something about it, without having some people resorting to scare tactics that I feel does more harm than good. One thing I think is very unfair, however, is when I see the anti-pollution coalitions focusing almost exclusively on the US, and seldom on other countries. The US already has one of the strictest clean air, clean water, and clean land policies in the world. Russia and China have among the worst. But when was the last time we heard of people causing a stink (figuratively) in Russia or China because of how much they pollute? The US is handier to use in the blame game, even though we are among the world leaders in anti-pollution laws and regulations. I don't think that we will make much headway with pollution until the countries who are the major polluters take steps to stop it. It is rather like buying a 5 lb sack of grain to feed the whole neighborhood...far better if the whole neighborhood pitches in. (And to be fair, there ARE a few countries with even higher standards than our own.)

It is my belief that science has become far too political. We have lots of data, we know that we need more and we are collecting it gradually, but nobody at all knows what the data means. Still, the political engine that now drives so many scientists dictates that they almost MUST talk about global catastrophes. I see that as being counter productive.

I only posted this thread in an attempt to show that there is much more than just one side of this story.

Well that at least gives me an idea of where to start looking, thanks.

__________________
"We cannot make, nor alter, nor even imitate so much as one blade of grass that He has made, and yet we can make or alter words of God as easily as words of man."
"We cannot serve God in the manner we serve those who cannot do without such service; and, therefore, the only idea we can have of serving God is that of contributing to the happiness of the living creation that God has made." -Thomas Paine

Silly Rex! It's because it isn't politically correct to criticize anybody else but the U.S. With China and Russia, the correct response is to wring one's hands and commiserate with them over what a terrible, terrible problem those poor people have, and maybe we should do something to help them out with it.

Never mind that both Russian and China have both the means and the technology (or the ability to acquire the technology will very little effort) to handle the problem, but have instead made deliberate, calculated policy decisions not to do anything about it.

That's the way things are supposed to be! It's only the U.S. that has the responsibility of cleaning up after everybody else.

__________________
Self-reverence, self-knowledge, self-control;
these three alone lead one to sovereign power.
Tennyson

Alas, I get the impression that you are right. To heck with whether it is right or not.

Hi Rev. Rex.

I've had a little trouble posting into this thread, I'm not sure what the problem is. Anyway I did a little preliminary research into the climate change issue.

I haven't encountered any scientific sites yet that support what you have said. Could you direct me to some?

I have too been struck by the hype. Mostly I think this is because it contrasts sharply with the media line of the past that assured me that climate change was the invention of "loonies" and ideological environmentalists.

Can you recall who these people are?

Do you know who is funding this? And why?

My own reading has revealed to me that companies such as ExxonMobil have funded groups that climate scientists have called disinformation. ExxonMobil and other oil companies would appear to have an interest in discrediting climate change science. What are your thoughts on this?

I don't have much time for Gore...

More to follow...

__________________
-Scott

It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. -- Bertrand Russell

As I said previously Rev. Rex, I was under the impression that the scientific consensus (right or wrong) was on the side that climate change is occurring and that humans are exacerbating it. Which you have contested.

The first site I visited was for The Royal Society which serves as the national academy of science for the UK and Commonwealth. On this site I found the following:

In the journal Science in 2004, Oreskes published the results of a survey of 928 papers on climate change published in peer-reviewed journals between 1993 and 2003. She found that three-quarters of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the view expressed in the IPCC 2001 report that human activities have had a major impact on climate change in the last 50 years, and none rejected it.

Source: http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630

What is your response to this? It certainly does not support the idea that the science is not being reported fairly.

__________________
-Scott

It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. -- Bertrand Russell

I also visited the site of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which seems to support the view that climate change is occuring and is being effected by humans. You can visit the site here: http://www.ipcc.ch/index.html

__________________
-Scott

It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. -- Bertrand Russell

I also found a blog run by climate scientists (http://www.realclimate.org/). Have a browse. It does not support the idea that climate science is being perverted or unfairly reported (that is to say, it is only being unfairly reported by climate change deniers). I visited the NCDC and read the FAQ which was accompanied by the logo of the NOAA which reports that global average temperatures are rising and greenhouse gases are causing this. See for yourself: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...ing.html#INTRO

I'm having a difficult time finding a credible source of information that disputes these findings.

__________________
-Scott

It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. -- Bertrand Russell

I've already given a couple sources, and right at the moment, I'm working and don't have a lot of time to look for more. But when I have the chance, I will do so.

In specific, no I couldn't tell you the names of the scientists that the media cited. Climatologists tend not to be very well known in science circles, in part I suppose because many pure scientists don't feel that Climatology is a legitimate science. Each time I'm watching or listening to the news, though, when one of these Climatologists that support the gloomy man caused global warming view, provided that I'm not in the middle of something, I start checking to see who they are, where they get their funding, etc. So far, I've checked something like 17 different ones (some of them reference others, giving me someone else to check too), and every single one of them have been funded by either the government directly, or indirectly, like by foundations that already hold the view that man is the cause of global warming. It isn't very objective, at least by appearances.

In regard to Exxon, while I would say that the findings of the groups that they support are at least as valid as these others, I hesitate to trust them, either, because they also have an obvious agenda. But then, a person doesn't need much to be called a "climatologist". A weatherman with minimal schooling is often called a climatologist, even though they wouldn't really qualify for being a true meteorologist.

My reaction to the statement that was made was that it is clearly extremely misleading. If there were only 1,000 climatologists, and they each ONLY wrote one paper, then it might be one thing. But what about all the papers written by the other 899,000 climatologists, just in the past 5 years? Or is he trying to indicate that less than 1,000 climatologists had an opinion or wrote papers?? (And that is just counting the 900,000 climatologists that there are right NOW. He wants to talk about those for the last 50 years...I'm guess that counting those who have retired or changed to a different line of work, that the number over the past 50 years would probably me somewhere around 2-3 million...I don't have the numbers on that, so it could be far higher.) It sort of reminds me of a pollster who does a poll of a couple thousand people, then publishes claims that "Americans believe that...". Hogwash. Getting the opinions of a very few selected people just doesn't mean much. I know that the media often uses this sort of data as definitive, and even stand by it when they are proven wrong over and over again. I just personally find that to be rather shoddy.

As for the data being perverted, that isn't quite what I believe. I believe that the raw data itself is valid. But I've come to realize that the interpretation of that data is what is severely, and often purposely flawed. The average American could have access to all of the data and would still have no idea what it meant. I also think that it is important to use the data from various science disciplines and not just one or two. For instance, geologists have shown that about 2,000 years ago, the global climate was substantially warmer than it is now. At the same time, the Nile valley and much of what is now the Sahara was far greener and lusher. We know from ice core samples that in the 1700's, there was a period of several years where the CO2 levels were far higher than now...that one they figured out. There was apparently a vast amount of forest in the US and Canada that burned, as well as a relatively brief time when there were more volcanoes erupting than "normal", either of which would produce more co2 than man does. Do we know what this various data really means? No. Any scientist who tries to say he does is merely guessing. The point is that we have many different sciences that give associated data, and this should also be considered. Currently, it seldom is. (I was rather surprised that even thermal imaging technology gives a lot of raw data about the world as it was hundreds and even thousands of years ago. It clearly showed the big river basin that is now covered by the Sahara, for instance. Fascinating stuff!)

And as much as they would love to have people believe that the 'general consensus' is that there is man caused global warming, this just isn't true. They can get away with it, though, because when people like Gore claim that a thousand climatologists agree that man caused global warming is real, it sounds like a lot. Very few sources will point out that there are around 900,000 climatologists, and the majority haven's said anything, either way. I don't think that I'd put a great deal of credence into what only 11 hundredths of a percent of climatologists are saying (even assuming that they are really saying it...I haven't even found proof of that yet).

Interestingly, the Nature channel, the Science channel, and even FoxNews have had segments or shows on in the past week that go a long way toward refuting the claims of the Algorites (Al Gore and his ilk). I'm sure that this is coincidence, and in some of those shows, they weren't really trying to refute anything, but they did, just the same. Obviously, though, neither the Algorites nor the mainstream media want to have people drawing the connection, because that would undermine their whole contention.