[quote]Eli B wrote:
[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:
It is even better when they ignore people because they dont like them personally. Scientists are far from benevolent white coat wearing geniuses just trying to figure out how things work.
No they are just ordinary (educated) human beings. Aside from the controversy over climate modeling with simulations I don’t think any scientist is arguing against the greenhouse effect or that we release massive amounts of these gases as a world population.
By reputable I mean publishing in scientific journals with data with the express purpose of getting other scientists to either confirm or critique through replicating the experiment. What I’m definitely not talking about are articles published on conspiracy theory sites with absolutely no citations which is the only climate change denial literature I have ever seen on this site.[/quote]
Peer Reviewed - just supports what i was saying before. Trust me, the peer review process is not exactly cut and dry, and a ton of the time it comes down to exactly what I was saying before. I have seen it dozens of times.
And I dont think anyone is arguing we dump tons of crap into the atmosphere. Just like volcanos do. I have seen numbers that it takes humans YEARS to release the the amount of “greenhouse gas” into the atmosphere that a single volcanic eruption does. The argument is whether these gases have the ability to change the climate, and whether we truly have enough of a role in the system to change anything that wasnt already going to happen.
Luckily enough, I also work with simulation (I love my job). And believe me, you can make a simulation say whatever you want. And even if it the wrong answer isnt deceitful, the slightest mistake in boundary conditions or modeling method will have profound impact on the outcome. Considering the data being used for these “models” (I use the term loosely) is suspect - they dont even follow a single locations temperature readings from year to year to get a trend, they will use different locations, talk about LOWSY methodology- these things lack any credibility in my eyes. We are talking about the same kind of models that cant even get withing 15 degrees of the temperature tomorrow when they have 100% of the information. But they expect to be taken seriously when they use limited data at best and useless crap data at worst to make predictions decades into the future and millions of years into the past?
Just because “scientific body A” hasnt approved some scientists papers doesnt mean it is wrong. Quite the contrary. I still debate with coworkers and others in biomechanics about a lot of the things Stuart McGill says (one of my favorite authors). He is published in peer reviewed journals, and I still cant get people to listen because they dont recognize the name or their mentor has never heard of him or worked with him. The scientific community reminds me a lot of high school, when I think about it…
EDIT- And it isnt like i am the guy that just wants to burn fossil fuels. We absolutely need alternative fuel sources. How idiotic the research is into those realms is another topic, though. We need renewable energy sources, but not because the sky is falling from all our polution…