Quote:
Originally Posted by TDK1044
The science is easily manipulated, just as in any major criminal case where you have two opposing scientific experts stating opposite views based on the same scientific evidence.
With the Global Warming issue, you need to look beyond the mouthpieces and the science as presented by both sides, and look for the real motive behind the issue.  |
Valid science is not easily manipulated, but people, particularly the general public are easily manipulated. You will always have two or more opposing scientific views as A) science is not perfect B) science is ever changing and evolving C) complete consensus never ever will exist among humans D) you will always find someone who disagrees, particularly if you offer them money to. Usually though they will each have their own different evidence in a lot of these arguments.
If the science was done correctly, motive is irrelevant. It only becomes relevant if the science was not done properly. If it wasn't done properly, it will show up in the science itself when properly reviewed, or retested. This is why I am waiting till the review is done before passing any judgment on the so called "climategate", as I have not see any significant evidence of any wrong doing.
The talking heads in this stuff is irrelevant, be it Limbaugh, Gore, or that climategate guy who sounds like his voice is going to break from all the extreme and fake emotion. These guys don't know squat, they are not scientists, they haven't read the reports, or if they have they don't really understand it (like the mistake Gore made). Never ever EVER base your own opinions on a subject based on what they say, as they are usually wrong, and heavily biased on the subject.
This is why I said look at the science itself and what the scientists have to say about it, and what areas are most supported by the greater scientific community. If most of the scientific community falls on a particular side, then the theory is highly credible (though never perfect).
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteamWake
Cmon we both know Al is more than just a moutpiece hell he is their leading proponent and poster boy. A few lies and fabrications wont stop him.. no sir !  |
Nope, just like it doesn't stop the mouthpieces on the other side of things either. They lie through their teeth, and spout all kinds of nonsense all the time, and make tons of mistakes too.
As a slight aside, I often wonder how many who involve themselves in these discussions actually have real scientific backgrounds and training (and I don't mean high school chemistry or physics). I suspect that only a handful of us have any formal training in scientific methodology and practice at a university level of education. I really get the strong impression that many do not have a thorough understanding of scientific method, as I often see a lot of mistakes and misunderstanding when it comes to scientific matters. I am curious to know how many actual scientists who are members here support each side. My impression is that most of the members who I know are/were scientists, and those that I suspect are scientists, mostly fall on the side of GW. But I could well be wrong too
Myself I am a scientist, though my area of expertise falls under the social sciences (I am however heavily trained in scientific/experimental methodology, and statistics).
I also wonder how many here would be actually willing and able to change their minds on a subject, or if their views are strictly faith/party based (and thus nigh unchangeable). For me to change my view on this subject, the scientific consensus on the subject would have to change to a new theory. Such as if human caused global warming was proven incorrect by stronger evidence or the weight of evidence shifted to a new better theory.