* Posts by Adam0625

7 publicly visible posts • joined 30 Mar 2012

Climate-change scepticism must be 'treated', says enviro-sociologist

Adam0625

Re: What the professor chooses to ignore:

@NomNomNom

We skeptics are indeed listening to the climate scientists. They are telling us that there is empirical data that conflicts with the hypothesis and that there are alternate hypotheses that can explain the majority of the warming we have experienced over the past few hundred years. If you disagree, then you are not looking at ALL of teh science.

Adam0625

Re: Jury still out != Denier

@Some Beggar

No offense taken. I worry, though, about anyone who merely defaults to a majority opinion and does not take the time to study all sides of an issue. In the case of CAGW, the science can be technically daunting. If that is too daunting, though, one can simply review the graphs of temperature change, Arctic ice change, sea surface temperature, sea level rise, etc. to see that the data is moving in the wrong direction to support CAGW. CO2 does indeed have an effect. It is simply small relative to natural effects.

Adam0625

Re: OK, I'll bite ...

I do not think the good professor cares whether or not we listen to her opinion. In her mind, the science is settled. She has a Borg mentality. Her proposition is assimilation. Can you say re-education camp?

Adam0625

Re: OK, I'll bite ...

Sorry, Audrey. But her opinion on climate change is EXACTLY what she's putting forward. So munch so that she believes anyone who disagrees with her needs treatment. The very idea is repugnant.

Adam0625

Re: Jury still out != Denier

Science does not validate anthing by consensus, as is implied here. If a single individual can display empirical data that conflicts with or confounds a theory, then the theory needs to be modified or scrapped. In the case of CAGW, this conflicting/confounding data and alternate explanations to events that supposedly PROVE CAGW are coming out in a steady stream. If one chooses to believe a theory in the face of such data, one is engaged in a political and/or religious crusade, not science.

Adam0625

Treatment available

The good professor seems unable to grasp that treatment is already available and that skeptics of CAGW practice it daily. It's called the scientific method. It states, quite simply, that if empirical data can be found which is inconsistent with the hypothesis, then the hypothesis needs to be modified or scrapped. It has been used appropriately and effectively to show that there are indeed inconsistencies between the hypothesis (that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels will cause CATASTROPHIC changes to the biosphere) and the empirical data needed to support it.

Not surprisingly, little effort appears to be going into reviewing the hypothesis while much effort is obviously going into denigrating those that have found fault with it. This is no longer science. It's political theater.

Adam0625

Re: Science is not in the business of "proof"

So what you're saying is that if I clip the tree ring data showing a temperature decrease (instead of a temperature increase as the hypothesis predicted) and substitute thermometer data which shows the desired increase, that I have effectively reproduced the results. Sure, that works. It's unethical, but it works.