Thread: More than 31,000 scientists don't buy it!!

It's Al Gore's man bear-pig and most support it just to save face and gain some attention

Originally Posted by Rajagra

That would be quite a trick considering it wouldn't have been published.

Ask yourself these questions:

A) Have you ever seen a news report about new evidence being found that supports the global warming theory?
Yes
B) Have you ever seen a news report about no new evidence being found that supports the global warming theory?
No. because that's not news. News is something that is 'new', 'important', 'exciting', 'noteworthy', etc.

However, the correct alternative question would be
C) Have you ever seen a report about a new evidence that does not support global warming theory?
and my answer is Yes

As I said you're likely not getting your news from unbiased sources. If you are talking about science, that is. If on the other hand you are talking about general news, then your logic is rather flawed. These have no claims whatsoever to be representative of the science thus you cannot derive that the science is biased based on data that does not represent it objectively.

Originally Posted by Rajagra

Climatologists are mounting expeditions all the time seeking evidence of global warming. They are quite open about it. Do you think they eagerly report any negative results with the same vigour as their positive results? You certainly seem to have complete faith in them. I don't. They show every sign of being passionately biased.

I thought we were talking about science? I reread your posts and it's the first time you're bringing cinematologists in the picture. In them I have no faith, never had, never will.

As far as the issue with not filming the ice sitting there, I would like to refer you to "argumentum ad ignorantiam". This is really as basic as it gets.

Originally Posted by gugi

As I said you're likely not getting your news from unbiased sources.

Nobody is. That's my point.

Take for example The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Some quotes from the Wiki:

• The IPCC is widely regarded as the ultimate authority on the science.
• The IPCC does not carry out its own research, it operates on the basis of scientific papers and independently documented results from other scientific bodies
• Scientists who participate in the IPCC assessment process do so without any compensation other than the normal salaries they receive from their home institutions. The process is labor intensive, diverting time and resources from participating scientists' research programs. Concerns have been raised that the large uncompensated time commitment and disruption to their own research may discourage qualified scientists from participating.

Now, bearing in mind the cost and difficulty of submitting data to the IPCC, do you seriously think anyone will do so with a report that fails to prove anything? Do you think people will submit reports that don't back up their personal beliefs and agendas?

As for your "argumentum ad ignorantiam" reference (may I word it in plain English?: lack of proof is not disproof) you seem missing my point again. Information that fails to prove something IS still valid and important information. If you are going to do a statistical analysis you can't ignore such information. You should include it, do a meta-analysis if you will.

Goodnight.

Originally Posted by Rajagra

Nobody is. That's my point.

OK, now I'm really confused, if nobody is unbiased, are you suggesting you did your own measurements and analysis that are way better than anybody elses? I mean how do you make up your mind on an issue? You can't apply this argument to just the side you don't like.

I don't see a reason to take your example, especially after the parts with emphasis. If I apply your argument I'd say that your quotation of biased sources is just for the sake of setting up a straw man and you're ignoring the vast majority of good sources.
However this statement will be equally meaningless if I do not provide some good sources. I already told you what they consist of, so I guess I'll have to do specific examples and here are the two most accessible to the amateur public
Nature Publishing Group : science journals, jobs, and information and Science/AAAS | Scientific research, news and career information (you may have to pay for a subscription or find them in a public library - the good stuff sometimes isn't free).
These are essentially the magazines of the scientific community so everything is biased towards 'news' but they are a good starting point to find more in-depth treatments, if you're so inclined.

Originally Posted by Rajagra

As for your "argumentum ad ignorantiam" reference (may I word it in plain English?: lack of proof is not disproof) you seem missing my point again. Information that fails to prove something IS still valid and important information. If you are going to do a statistical analysis you can't ignore such information. You should include it, do a meta-analysis if you will.

Uhm, this is not a mathematical problem, it is a scientific one. The difference is very important. The naive way you seem to proposing to be solved is not only impossible, but also meaningless. Just think for a second, are you seriously telling me that averaging the temperature over the whole earth is the only way this should be done? Temperature is a statistical quantity, it is a measurement of the average chaotic kintetic energy of matter, so unless you can measure the kinetic energy of every single atom defined to belong to Earth (including the core and the troposphere), you are excluding data. A thermometer is only measuring the temperature of the atoms in contact with it, which is statisticaly negligible amount by your definition, so you can not use these either.

And finally I disagree with the last emphasis, information that fails to prove something may be valid, but it is not necessarily important. Most often it is irrelevant. How long I slept last night is a valid information, but it doesn't have much importance to global warming.

I just find your statements on the science of the subject completely unsubstantiated and so far you haven't made any progress convincing me otherwise. The only arguments you've provided are irrelevant and/or wrong. You must have something better, I want to know what is it.