60
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 522:
Line 522: + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Science of global warming (view source)
Revision as of 21:33, June 29, 2007
, 21:33, June 29, 2007no edit summary
#This site only seeks what is true. If you have evidence of any errors, please point them out. Using biased sources like ''Science'' journal or the UN won't help your argument; try citing a specific study by a particular scientist. And say what they observed and how they explain it. That's science. It's not science to say that a particular ''authority'' endorses an idea.
#This site only seeks what is true. If you have evidence of any errors, please point them out. Using biased sources like ''Science'' journal or the UN won't help your argument; try citing a specific study by a particular scientist. And say what they observed and how they explain it. That's science. It's not science to say that a particular ''authority'' endorses an idea.
#If you're "really" worried about people who [[appeal to authority]] instead of seeking out and reporting what is really true, then you should help us create a complete and accurate article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 15:54, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
#If you're "really" worried about people who [[appeal to authority]] instead of seeking out and reporting what is really true, then you should help us create a complete and accurate article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 15:54, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
Well, here is my lenghty response in return :)
# Peiser has taken back most of his critisism and states that he no longer doubts that overhelming majority of climatologists think that current global warming is caused by man. [http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/ep38peiser.pdf]
# I can only say that you don't share that opinnion with many people. Science magazine is higly respected amongst the scientists. And offcourse they reject articles that have passed peer review, there would be thousands of scientists wanting their work to be published by science, but it has limited resources. The fact that it can't publish everything sent to it dosen't mean that the articles published would be any less credible if anything, just the opposite, they should reprisent cream of the crop. Allso, it should not matter where the study was published, as long as it's sourced right and you can observe the study itself and draw your own conclusions.
# So, an conspiracy theory, that UN and IPCC would be out there to get US? And like most conspiracy theoryes, it really dosen't make any sense. What in earth could UN gain from it? How could they convince all the scientists to join this conspiracy without exposing it? Why would any scientist want to join them? Im sorry, but for me it seams like just an attempt to discredit them with vague accusations when there are not enough facts to do it.
# And National academies of science are just one part of the great conspiracy?
# True, most popular view isn't necesarily the right one, but it usually tells a lot when so many professionals dedicated to research that particular field of science come to same conclusion. It's not wise to just ignore that.
# Hmm, what other options and research there was beside the hockey stick graph that the IPCC ignored? I don't think that any scientists, even the most skeptic ones doubt anymore the fact that the climate is getting warmer, the question just is why.
# Thats just and generializing attack against all liberals without any evidence. I could make same kind of empty claims about conservatives and we wouldn't get anywhere.
# This one really deserves and through out answer, because here i think you are doing just the opposite what you are preaching. Lets see, you want and reliable source, i offer science magazine, one of the most respected scientific magazines, you in other hand offer some unknown website. You want me to cite a specific study, which i have all along done, the specific study is the one made by Oreskes and to which you can find citation from the science article. You offer a study that has no author that we know, there is no refrence to the whole study no where to be found and if there was, it would still be 18 years old. You want me to tell what they observed, which is just what i did, they observed that the papers they studyed showed there to be widly accepted consensus amongs climatolgist that the global warming was caused by man. On your study there isn't much to observe as i can't find even an abstract from it, but if one can trust the unknown website you offered, it shows that 18 years ago the scientists in American Meteorological Society where divided if not sceptical about the global warming what it dosen't of course mention as it's that old is that in 2003 that same organisation published an statement concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508 (2003)). So i can't really understand, why that article of yours got to the conservapedia entry, if you claim to have such a high criteria on what you trust, Unless it's because it supports your world view.
# That is exactly what im trying to do. I dont think that the current article is accurate in any way, atleast the part we are discussing now.
But during the whole discussion we have had about this subject, you haven't answered anything to my enquiryes to why you are willing to use that source of yours, when there is no citation to it, no reasearh to be found and it's so old that it can't be in anyway considered to be representing the current views on the subject. [[User:HeikkiL|HeikkiL]] 17:33, 29 June 2007 (EDT)