Is Inhofe correct?

Post Reply New Topic

I think that the idea that EVERY scientific organization * in the world is part of a hoax/conspiracy is as KooKoo as Elvis being alive and http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/ori ... titled.png
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/what-are-you ... ge-denial/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... -nonsense/
* The evidence for global warming due to human influence has been recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries.[6] No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from the summary conclusions of the IPCC.[7]
FROM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_war ... acy_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific ... ate_change

The amount of people who would have to be involved is what makes it as implausible as the holocaust being a hoax.

Consensus doesn't mean it is correct, a lot of science is resisted by the establishment. A lot of self-proclaimed scientists and the institutions they belong or just learned laymans aren't any different than a church, they just recite dogma they've learned from some book and some high priest so there doesn't having to be a knowing wide spread conspiracy or hoax, its just repeating what they've learned to be true. A lot of supposedly rational minded people that scream science like to think they've evolved beyond religion but still worship and believe in things the same way. Much like the church, these high priests may ignore or repress information that contradicts their dogma.

It's easy to ignore anything that conflicts with scientific "dogma", especially:

• Claims based on the "authority" of someone's "sacred" writings.
  
• Claims based on anecdote, hearsay and rumor.
  
• Claims based on the popularity of the person(s) making the claims.
  
• Claims based on alleged forces that can not be observed or measured.
  
• Claims based solely on coincidence and correlation.
  
• Claims and predictions that consistently fail to come true.
  
• Claims that are so vague and malleable that any event (or lack of events) has been used as supportive "evidence".
  
• Claims that a conspiracy is suppressing knowledge that will benefit all humanity; but that would also ruin the global economy.
  
• Claims that require mere belief in the claims to validate the claims.
  
• Claims that no one but the claimants could possibly understand how the claims are allegedly valid.
  
• Claims made by people who obviously have no real working knowledge of the subject matter of their claims.
  
• Claims made in the popular media first (i.e., Conspiracy websites, Social websites, Internet blogs, Facebook, et cetera).
  
• Claims made by people who refuse to give a critical demonstration of their claims.
  
• Claims made by people who refuse to share the maths behind their claims.
  
• Claims made by people who use improper grammar, punctuation, and spelling in their claims - even when using their native or "first" language!
  
• Claims that are mere thinly-disguised solicitations for money.

There, that should cover the majority of pseudo-scientific quackery that passes for "science" on this website.

By the way ... if there is no observable or measurable difference between a particular claim being true and that same claim being false, then it is safe to declare that the claim has no basis in empiricism (e.g., it is not "Scientific"), and is therefor merely an expression of the claimant's faith.

Faith proves nothing.

No, there isn't any massive conspiracy of scientists, but there certainly is one consisting of ignoramuses, which includes Inhofe.

The big oil companies are secretly waging a war against climate by paying people like Inhofe to spread misleading propaganda in an effort to slowly boil the frog. Good thing, though, short term; it's getting cooler, but what people fail to understand is that we're heading for a new ice age.

Inhofe is certainly a mouthpiece for big business' environmental scathing policies, but he's playing ball because he sincerely believes science is the puppet of SATAN(!). He rejects the notion that the free market can be responsible for climate change for the same reason why he also rejects evolution or gay rights: because of his literalistic, fundamentalist reading of the Bible. For him, we humans can't destroy God's creation because that's God's job at the endtime, the environment exists only to be exploited by us humans (Dominionism), and that capitalism is the only Christ sanctioned system in the world. And creatures like him are legion.

Al Gore is "mr Big".

If any scientist is brave enough to break ranks and question Global Warming Al Gore puts out a contract on them. If any scientist in the entire world speaks out that scientist finds a horse's severed head in his bed. Soon to be followed by a vist from Don Gore's enforcers knocking at the scientist's door. The scientist is then taken "for a ride" along the Tennessee River (in Gore's homestate), is fitted with a nice pair cement wing tip shoes, and....is never seen nor heard from again. It's all very cleanly done.

Al Gore is also behind the conspiracies to cover up evidence of Noah's Flood, and the evidence for Creationism, and for surpressing the NASA evidence for a geocentric solar system!

Exactly. The real conspirators are pople like Inhofe and big corporations. Victim blaming is part of their tactics in the form of accusing others of using their own evil methods. Clever, some would say, but essentially just evil. And what's up with that Lord Monckton character? He used to be a member of MI6.

Aspie that I am, I almost didn't catch that you were being sarcastic.

It is sad that so far 3 people voted ?yes? showing their lack of critical thinking skills, lack of acquaintance with logic and ignorance of science. It is not just a consensus it is a consensus backed up with empirical data. *
To claim that EVERY scientific organization in the world is falsifying data and part of a conspiracy/hoax is as silly as claiming that http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/ori ... titled.png exists. But let?s suppose that such an outrageously ignorant claim is true (that ALL of science is a fraud) , then what do they base their claim that AGW is false on? Obviously, not science, because they dismiss science.
*
Climategate was proven to be a manufactured scandal. The ?neat trick? mentioned in the emails was not nefarious. It was similar to saying, ?I found a neat trick to solve this calculus problem quicker.?
Even if ?climategate? were true (it is obviously not) that was only one minor research facility. To claim that every research facility is falsifying data in pursuit of a conspiracy/hoax would be laughable except that it shows the dismal state of many people?s critical thinking skills.

Actually, it shows the exact opposite.

I've spent the last 6 years trying to teach principles of critical thinking to the members of WP, and it looks like my efforts are finally paying off.

Shaming people into believing as you do (a.k.a., "Fallacy of Appeal to Shame") will only drive them further away.

Further, the only thing that is real about "Climategate" is the fact that several weeks before the Copenhagen Summit on climate change, an unknown individual or group breached the Climate Research Group's (CRU) server and copied thousands of emails and computer files to various locations on the Internet -- a clearly illegal act, by the way.

What makes this "Climategate" an utter farce is that the contents of the emails were then selectively taken out of context and blatantly "edited" to reflect the agenda of the "Global Warming is a Scientific Conspiracy" crowd.

No fewer than eight independent committees investigated their allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct, thus exonerating the CRU and forcing a withdrawal of all other charges against them.

So don't be so surprised that so few people agree with you; most people around here can and do think for themselves, and are no longer easily swayed by falsified data and fallacious reasoning.

Reason has triumphed over fear and doubt. Get used to it.

The science is settled. All that remains is to understand why the globe is cooling.

The globe is cooling because of manmade and other warming.

Blaming greenhouse gases is a copout. Actual heat output, heating homes, industry, the heat island effect of paving, roofs, cutting down trees and removing shade, and plowing earth removing light colored plants, and leaving dark soil.

It is not CO2, which can be a problem, it is water vapor which is the common result of heat, that rises to the cold of space layer above us, and falls as rain. Some heat is lost to space, the more water vapor the more loss, and some heat energy is used up in the winds.

Something like 543 calories of heat are taken up by one gram of water turning to vapor, which moves the surface heat into water vapor. The hotter it gets, the more evaporates.

Water vapor does trap more heat from sunlight, which lets the air hold even more water vapor.

Global warming is not half the problem of global warming stalling out.

Then the cycle reverses, cooler air cannot hold as much water vapor, and as the largest differance is in the far north, where warming is most pronounced, it falls as snow.

The last time this happened, following a meteor strike 22,000 years ago, forty-five miles of snow fell over Canada and Scandinavia. It compacted to five miles of ice, then flowed outward till it was only three miles thick. It reached London and Saint Louis.

We do need to reduce the rate of warming, but continue warming or else. One degree in a hundred years is ten in a thousand, we would not survive.

The differance between and ice age and the hottest interglacial is five degrees F.

This happened when under ten thousand humans existed, who made fires, now called Original Sin.

We are feeding the tiger, we cannot stop, but a diet is in order.

Edward O. Wilson wrote in Consilence, the Convergence of All Knowledge, that one branch of science knows nothing of other branches. Climate Science is right, but they know nothing of Geologic History, which shows this pattern has happened several times.

They also missed Thermodynamics, heat flows outward, is lost to space, and the more you have the more you lose.

The answer of course is to open the Darian Gap, letting the Pacific flow into the Gulf of Mexico. It is eight foot higher, warmer, would join the Gulf Stream, and warm northen Europe. The last time it was open we did not have ice ages. We would lose most of Florida, but reading the news, a good idea.

We do not have to dig a ditch, a major pipeline siphon would do it. Then we would have a thermostat, the world climate valve.

Science is an alright hobby, but breaking it into industries gives short sighted views of the whole.

Science is more of an art.

^^^
I'm certain science is more than an art; it has practical applications and explains the how and why things are and work. If almost all of the scientific community says global warming is real and the result of man made pollutants, then I'm certain they have taken thermodynamics and the geological history of the earth into account. They're scientists, fer Chrissakes!
And sure, the other side has some scientists supporting their stance - paid hacks who are no different from the pseudo scientist quacks who promote creationism an a young earth.