Consensus On Climate

Comments 1 - 8 of 8 previous next Post a comment

• + sts3 7 months ago

  I didn’t know that the IPCC was established by two organizations of the United Nations! I think that should be mentioned somewhere in this presentation, considering that we are supposed to be attempting to remove any potential political bias. What is the UN doing meddling in scientific theories? This couldn’t have anything to do with funding, could it? I’d be interested to see the statistics that show how many of these specialized global warming scientists are being funded by the UN, or the US government for that matter.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change

• + guest9d6c8a6 7 months ago

  Dan, I applaud you for not, in this presentation, saying 'The science is settled' like Al Gore did before congress. You have taught me in this presentation that the theory of Global Warming would cease to be a theory if 'The science is settled' because it would no longer be able to be proven wrong. If 'The science is settled', I think Al Gore at least, has shifted from scientific theory to religion.

• + sts3 7 months ago

  Slide 27 shows some of the past theories of the scientific community that have since been proven to be wrong. These were all probably highly respected theories at the time from highly respected scientists. Why is it that the scientific theories of the past are less reliable than the scientific theories of the present or the scientific theories of the future? Science and politics are inseparable if all of society gets jerked around every time scientists discover something new about CO2. There was a time when the practice of letting a leech suck the blood out of your arm was widely (probably could have passed a peer review) used by doctors as a treatment for just about any disease. Scientists are humans and make mistakes like the rest of us...

• + guestd7252b 7 months ago

  'Some sociologists of science argue that peer review makes the ability to publish susceptible to control by elites and to personal jealousy. Reviewers tend to be especially critical of conclusions that contradict their own views, and lenient towards those that accord with them. At the same time, elite scientists are more likely than less established ones to be sought out as referees, particularly by high-prestige journals or publishers. As a result, it has been argued, ideas that harmonize with the elites are more likely to see print and to appear in premier journals than are iconoclastic or revolutionary ones, which accords with Thomas Kuhn’s well-known observations regarding scientific revolutions.'
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppression_of_intellectual_dissent#Academia

• + sts3 7 months ago

  Slide 81? Is the scientific community absolutely apolitical and worthy of our unquestioned trust? I think some analysis of the global warming theory belongs on political opinion sites if scientists are going to take this theory into the political realm, as they did in 1988 (Slide 37) and 2007 (Slide 40).

• + gueste988af9 7 months ago

  ok, so the key word is THEORY. that helps. I guess I just have a problem with this theory being presented in a way that seems to reject any other viewpoints as junk science. I can see where it would be pretty hard for one of the peer reviewers to prove that something didn’t happen ’millions’ of years ago.

• + gueste07a50 7 months ago

  Look up SCIENTIFIC METHOD. The difference between a belief and a theory,is that an experiment can be done to prove a scientific theory WRONG. Not a belief. That’s why this is science and and believing the Earth is 4,000 years old is a religion.

• + guestd7252b 7 months ago

  I’d like to know how the peer review process works for generating a graph that shows what anything was like ’millions’ of years ago. Is this really science or a religion? I can observe the earth, God’s creation, and see that there is a creator. Can this now be called science?

Post a comment

Embed Video Email:
Subscribe to follow-up comments Unsubscribe from followup comments