Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 5
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 10:25 pm    Post subject: Majority of scientists dismiss man-made global warming Reply with quote

Quote:
Marc Morano cited a July 2007 review of 539 abstracts in peer-reviewed scientific journals from 2004 through 2007 that found that climate science continues to shift toward the views of global warming skeptics.


Quote:
SURVEY: LESS THAN HALF OF ALL PUBLISHED SCIENTISTS ENDORSE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY; COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY OF PUBLISHED CLIMATE RESEARCH REVEALS CHANGING VIEWPOINTS


link
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 11:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another interesting article from the same source.

-Mac
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 12:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Doesn't matter what the majority of scientists say, science is not settled by consensus. Science is settled by gathering data, forming hypothesis, and testing them. Scientists, a majority of them or not, can be wrong just like the rest of us.

Still, interesting.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Doesn't matter what the majority of scientists say, science is not settled by consensus. Science is settled by gathering data, forming hypothesis, and testing them. Scientists, a majority of them or not, can be wrong just like the rest of us.


I agree. But the article is relevant in that many of the arguments made by proponents of Anthropogenic warming involve concensus, or listing all the smart people who supposedly agree with them.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 9:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
Doesn't matter what the majority of scientists say, science is not settled by consensus. Science is settled by gathering data, forming hypothesis, and testing them. Scientists, a majority of them or not, can be wrong just like the rest of us.


It is the majority of scientists according to PUBLISHED journal articles. Presumedly, they wouldn't get published if they weren't gathering gathering data and testing hypothesis.

Besides, if science was settled by gathering data and testing hypotheses then global warming would have been settled long ago. It is precisely because vast numbers of scientists' funding depends on this tenuous theory that it is still being discussed.

It it their ability to dupe the public into believing their unproven hypothesis that keeps the money flowing. If the public knew that the majority of scientists in PUBLISHED journals didnt' support the theory then public support would tumble.
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 1:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:

It it their ability to dupe the public into believing their unproven hypothesis that keeps the money flowing.


Do you understand how science research is funded, and who decides who gets funding?
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 3:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
Craig wrote:

It it their ability to dupe the public into believing their unproven hypothesis that keeps the money flowing.


Do you understand how science research is funded, and who decides who gets funding?


Yes. I've published work in the field of environmental science. And you?
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 3:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:

Yes. I've published work in the field of environmental science. And you?


So you know that the public has no say over who gets funding? Then why did you make your previous comment?
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 3:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
Craig wrote:

Yes. I've published work in the field of environmental science. And you?


So you know that the public has no say over who gets funding? Then why did you make your previous comment?


But the government does. Especially in Canada. And government decisions are greatly influenced by public opinion.
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:

But the government does. Especially in Canada. And government decisions are greatly influenced by public opinion.


No, the government does not decide which scientists get funding.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 5:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
Craig wrote:

But the government does. Especially in Canada. And government decisions are greatly influenced by public opinion.


No, the government does not decide which scientists get funding.


Why do you have to be petulant. The government provides the FUNDING. The scientists decide who gets it. Without man made global warming the money would dry up.

Propagate the myth of man made global warming and the government provides funding to research and combat it. The scientists and engineers then decide how to spend this money. Therefore, it is in their interests to keep the myth alive.

WHAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THIS????
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 5:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
The government provides the FUNDING. The scientists decide who gets it. Without man made global warming the money would dry up.

Propagate the myth of man made global warming and the government provides funding to research and combat it. The scientists and engineers then decide how to spend this money. Therefore, it is in their interests to keep the myth alive.


Funding to NSERC has not changed significantly over the past 10 years. What makes you believe that if global warming wasn't an issue, funding for science research would dry up?

Quote:
WHAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THIS????


No need to get angry. As a smart man once said:

Craig wrote:

Actually, when someone resorts to emotion it is because they can't put together a strong intellectual argument. Anyone can act emotional - it isn't a talent. Debating rationally is the best talent of all... Getting all fired up is the internet equivilent of screaming in a face to face debate - it is ineffective and annoying.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 5:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
Craig wrote:
The government provides the FUNDING. The scientists decide who gets it. Without man made global warming the money would dry up.

Propagate the myth of man made global warming and the government provides funding to research and combat it. The scientists and engineers then decide how to spend this money. Therefore, it is in their interests to keep the myth alive.


Funding to NSERC has not changed significantly over the past 10 years. What makes you believe that if global warming wasn't an issue, funding for science research would dry up?


Just because overall funding hasn't changed doesn't mean funding allocated to global warming research hasn't.

Quote:
Quote:
WHAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THIS????


No need to get angry. As a smart man once said:

Craig wrote:

Actually, when someone resorts to emotion it is because they can't put together a strong intellectual argument. Anyone can act emotional - it isn't a talent. Debating rationally is the best talent of all... Getting all fired up is the internet equivilent of screaming in a face to face debate - it is ineffective and annoying.
[/quote]

Not angry. I just find that you like to bicker endlessly about stupid things. Are you honestly suggesting that funding for global warming research hasn't increased in recent years as a results of the paranoia that surrounds it?
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 5:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.

But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.


http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 5:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Kueter argues that reporters should more closely scrutinize the research funded by private foundations; he charges that some of these foundations have already concluded that carbon dioxide and other industrial emissions are causing the Earth to warm. In Kueter's view, those foundations want the government to regulate greenhouse gases, andhe says that they may be influencing the global-warming research that they underwrite.


http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=284
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 5

Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Majority of scientists dismiss man-made global warming

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB