Anyway, I'm not trying to attack you, I'm just stating my own opinion, as you are. My only problem has been that it seems you bring up points saying everything about global warming is a fraud or wrong, but I haven't seen anything to say that you are correct, such as a link to anything science article or paper stating that.
I'm done for now :greg:
you are correct about my criticism being inappropriate . . . I have been very general, and discounting of any who buy into the global warming hype.
But I hope that you can now see the irony.
With the global warming crowd, there is no middle ground (their own words). You either believe in it, or are wrong. Period. Algore even said that there is NO ROOM FOR DISCUSSION because there is now "a consensus" among scientists.
What consensus?
Besides, do you remember what happened to the climatologists who disagreed with algore and his little minions?
A head of the National Weather Service THREATENED TO HAVE THEM DE-CERTIFIED for disagreeing with global warming!!!
If you don't agree with the global warming crowd, they refuse to debate you on the merits of the argument, but instead they GO AFTER YOUR THROAT!
There is no concept of "agree to disagree." It's you're with us, or for us . . . and those who disagree with global warming-ists are blacklisted.
This tactic was WRONG when it was used in Salem, it was wrong when used during the 50's, and it is wrong today.
There very well may be some merit to some of the arguments being put forth by the global warming crowd . . . but it's unfortunate that we'll never know whether or not this is true.
Too many people have a stake in the outcome of this debate to let the debate occur. Some opportunists saw big $$$ in Global Warming and started capitalizing on it. Then the politicians smelled the $$$, seized onto it, and politicized it. Once something becomes political, there is NO place for scientific discussion.
You have people claiming that there is a consensus, when no consensus exists. You have people making personal attacks and threats against those who disagree with the global warming-ists. You have people paying big $$$ to scientists who help "prove" global warming . . . and NO ONE cries foul about this!
Shouldn't scientists be free from political influence and pressures?
If a scientist publishes a paper that is critical of the global warming-ists position? Their grants are IMMEDIATELY revoked.
AND NO ONE CARES THAT THIS IS GOING ON!
I thought that liberals were the ones who cared about "free speech," "pure science," having open minds, and encouraging diverse opinions.
As for me not providing counter-propaganda/websites to support my position: why? Others have provided these web-sites, and they have been ignored. What is the point of providing more sites?
Besides, given the sample size being used, the predictions these scientists are making are STATISTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!!!
How old is the earth? According to these scientists, the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
We have been keeping records of the weather, and measurements of temperatures for the last 200 years.
In statistics, there is something called standard error/deviation.
What this means is that any time you make a prediction based on a small sample, there is a possibility of error in your calculation.
Standard deviation tells you how far your results can deviate, and what % of accuracy you will have.
It's complicated . . . look at political polls. You always see predictions of how many votes a politician will get, and at the bottom of the poll you always see "Error: +/- 3%."
Say a poll predicts that Politician A is winning with 60% of the vote.
Standard error/deviation means that there is a 99% possibility that Politician A is getting anywhere between 57% to 63% of the vote. This 3% is the standard of error/deviation that the results can experience, while remaining 99% accurate.
So, let's look at the sample size these climatologists are using:
200 years. 200 years out of 4.5 billion years . . . this gives you a standard error of 7.9%.
So, any prediction which they make, there is a 99% possibility that their prediction is off by 7.9%.
In a poll, if the standard error is 3%, and candidate A is winning by 52%, the poll will say that it is "too close to call" because there is a 99% chance that candidate A is winning by 55%, or losing by 49%.
Scientists have predicted that the temperature will rise between 2 to 11 degrees over the next year, right?
Figure the standard error into this, and tell me if it is ethical to be making these dramatic predictions . . .
