A statement from the American Geophysical Union

[HAL 9000 96]

FYI-

HIGH and constant levels of dietary fat DOES lead to heart disease.

Also, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Metabolic Syndrome, etc... etc... etc...

Something very capable in Western society.

So, if you regulate CO2 levels, then its obvious you will see stabilization. The world is not a vacuum nor is it a static environment. Gee, I think we've stated already we have seasons and tilt variations.

[LuzyC 0]

....

Edited January 28, 2008 by LuzyC

[GaryC 7]

Scientists are human and subject to the same weaknesses that plague us all. One of these weaknesses is the need to belong to the majority. Another is the unwillingness to admit that they were wrong. Yet one more is falling to peer pressure to be on the "right" side of an issue. Global Warming is one of those subjects that scientists are especially prone to knuckle under to these weaknesses. Add to that the political aspects and the fact that most scientists depend on funding from others and it no wonder that man made global warming has been so misrepresented.

Confusion between being accepted by the peer-review process and fitting in are two different things that one that has not published, independent of whether or not he/she is right or wrong as it pertains to a particular topic, in this particular scenario- does not understand. At least that is what my observation states based on what has been previously written.

Now... talking about funding... if the majority of US Scientists receive public funds, making us party to a US government position- as you so imply in this obervation, then there would not be any independent research not conclusions in this country. Maybe that explains why you can google up "scientists" that support private "foundation" conclusions that global warming does no exist but at least the US government and UN have rigorous scientific standards that are ethically met by the absolute majority of the scientific community in order for funding to proceed.

Also, if the scientific mainstream were to be completely dependent on a prevailing government opinion in order to procure funds, then by the aforementioned process the majority of public-funded scientists would not have scientific conclusions contrary to the present opinion prevalent in the US government. How's them apples.

:lol: Your pitiful. Why waste my time with someone that will not even consider an opposing view point? How very un-scientific of you. I have a feeling that even if a glacier ran over your head you will still tow the "consensus" line. Thanks for proving my point.

[GaryC 7]

FYI-

HIGH and constant levels of dietary fat DOES lead to heart disease.

Also, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Metabolic Syndrome, etc... etc... etc...

Something very capable in Western society.

So, if you regulate CO2 levels, then its obvious you will see stabilization. The world is not a vacuum nor is it a static environment. Gee, I think we've stated already we have seasons and tilt variations.

Head in the sand again? I just showed you that the consensus about fat was wrong. You just keep proving my point over and over.

And regulating CO2 will do nothing for the environment. I dare you to prove otherwise.

[HAL 9000 96]

Scientists are human and subject to the same weaknesses that plague us all. One of these weaknesses is the need to belong to the majority. Another is the unwillingness to admit that they were wrong. Yet one more is falling to peer pressure to be on the "right" side of an issue. Global Warming is one of those subjects that scientists are especially prone to knuckle under to these weaknesses. Add to that the political aspects and the fact that most scientists depend on funding from others and it no wonder that man made global warming has been so misrepresented.

Confusion between being accepted by the peer-review process and fitting in are two different things that one that has not published, independent of whether or not he/she is right or wrong as it pertains to a particular topic, in this particular scenario- does not understand. At least that is what my observation states based on what has been previously written.

Now... talking about funding... if the majority of US Scientists receive public funds, making us party to a US government position- as you so imply in this obervation, then there would not be any independent research not conclusions in this country. Maybe that explains why you can google up "scientists" that support private "foundation" conclusions that global warming does no exist but at least the US government and UN have rigorous scientific standards that are ethically met by the absolute majority of the scientific community in order for funding to proceed.

Also, if the scientific mainstream were to be completely dependent on a prevailing government opinion in order to procure funds, then by the aforementioned process the majority of public-funded scientists would not have scientific conclusions contrary to the present opinion prevalent in the US government. How's them apples.

:lol: Your pitiful. Why waste my time with someone that will not even consider an opposing view point? How very un-scientific of you. I have a feeling that even if a glacier ran over your head you will still tow the "consensus" line. Thanks for proving my point.

Ouch.

Still no show when it comes to refuting what I actually write... gee Gary...

[GaryC 7]

Scientists are human and subject to the same weaknesses that plague us all. One of these weaknesses is the need to belong to the majority. Another is the unwillingness to admit that they were wrong. Yet one more is falling to peer pressure to be on the "right" side of an issue. Global Warming is one of those subjects that scientists are especially prone to knuckle under to these weaknesses. Add to that the political aspects and the fact that most scientists depend on funding from others and it no wonder that man made global warming has been so misrepresented.

Confusion between being accepted by the peer-review process and fitting in are two different things that one that has not published, independent of whether or not he/she is right or wrong as it pertains to a particular topic, in this particular scenario- does not understand. At least that is what my observation states based on what has been previously written.

Now... talking about funding... if the majority of US Scientists receive public funds, making us party to a US government position- as you so imply in this obervation, then there would not be any independent research not conclusions in this country. Maybe that explains why you can google up "scientists" that support private "foundation" conclusions that global warming does no exist but at least the US government and UN have rigorous scientific standards that are ethically met by the absolute majority of the scientific community in order for funding to proceed.

Also, if the scientific mainstream were to be completely dependent on a prevailing government opinion in order to procure funds, then by the aforementioned process the majority of public-funded scientists would not have scientific conclusions contrary to the present opinion prevalent in the US government. How's them apples.

:lol: Your pitiful. Why waste my time with someone that will not even consider an opposing view point? How very un-scientific of you. I have a feeling that even if a glacier ran over your head you will still tow the "consensus" line. Thanks for proving my point.

Ouch.

Still no show when it comes to refuting what I actually write... gee Gary...

You have written nothing to refute. You keep spewing the same BS over and over. Some scientist. geez

[GaryC 7]

Let me try to explain so even you can understand. You keep touting the peer review process as the way scientists get their ideas validated. Well guess who does the peer review? The same scientists that have the aforementioned mind set! Anyone that comes along with an opposing view gets shot down. Take your reaction to my point of view. Your hostile and degrading of my opinion. You think you have all the answers. Your arrogance and self importance will not allow any other ideas. So as far as your concerned your opinions are useless.

[Dan J 277]

FYI-

HIGH and constant levels of dietary fat DOES lead to heart disease.

Also, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Metabolic Syndrome, etc... etc... etc...

Something very capable in Western society.

So, if you regulate CO2 levels, then its obvious you will see stabilization. The world is not a vacuum nor is it a static environment. Gee, I think we've stated already we have seasons and tilt variations.

Head in the sand again? I just showed you that the consensus about fat was wrong. You just keep proving my point over and over.

And regulating CO2 will do nothing for the environment. I dare you to prove otherwise.

So you accept that CO2 interacts with infrared light, but you don't think that could be a bad thing?

Can I have your magic make Co2 begone button?

[HAL 9000 96]

FYI-

HIGH and constant levels of dietary fat DOES lead to heart disease.

Also, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Metabolic Syndrome, etc... etc... etc...

Something very capable in Western society.

So, if you regulate CO2 levels, then its obvious you will see stabilization. The world is not a vacuum nor is it a static environment. Gee, I think we've stated already we have seasons and tilt variations.

Head in the sand again? I just showed you that the consensus about fat was wrong. You just keep proving my point over and over.

And regulating CO2 will do nothing for the environment. I dare you to prove otherwise.

Well maybe I'm a sham scientist. Tell that to my PhD committe that seems to overwhelmingly disagree with your opinion.

Please... re-read what is written before getting all hogtied.

Or, PM me and I can refer you to any university in our state so they can put you on a fast-track to your favorite science PhD degree since you are Googling (I assume Google... maybe its Yahoo!) your way to a degree. Heck I'll even write you a recommendation based on your proven track record here.

But since we digress, maybe you should check up a little more by being a scientist yourself and showing us how CO2 does not affect the environment contrary to what thousands of geophysicists, environmental scientists, and rooms full of hot-breathed folks locked in a room together blabbing all day long without moving all have found in their own research.

Then maybe I myself will take you seriously. Then again, remember your experimental design will have to be reviewed to prove its not influenced or biased. I am open to that and am frequently reviewed by institutional as well as government oversight. Are you?

[HAL 9000 96]

Scientists are human and subject to the same weaknesses that plague us all. One of these weaknesses is the need to belong to the majority. Another is the unwillingness to admit that they were wrong. Yet one more is falling to peer pressure to be on the "right" side of an issue. Global Warming is one of those subjects that scientists are especially prone to knuckle under to these weaknesses. Add to that the political aspects and the fact that most scientists depend on funding from others and it no wonder that man made global warming has been so misrepresented.

Confusion between being accepted by the peer-review process and fitting in are two different things that one that has not published, independent of whether or not he/she is right or wrong as it pertains to a particular topic, in this particular scenario- does not understand. At least that is what my observation states based on what has been previously written.

Now... talking about funding... if the majority of US Scientists receive public funds, making us party to a US government position- as you so imply in this obervation, then there would not be any independent research not conclusions in this country. Maybe that explains why you can google up "scientists" that support private "foundation" conclusions that global warming does no exist but at least the US government and UN have rigorous scientific standards that are ethically met by the absolute majority of the scientific community in order for funding to proceed.

Also, if the scientific mainstream were to be completely dependent on a prevailing government opinion in order to procure funds, then by the aforementioned process the majority of public-funded scientists would not have scientific conclusions contrary to the present opinion prevalent in the US government. How's them apples.

:lol: Your pitiful. Why waste my time with someone that will not even consider an opposing view point? How very un-scientific of you. I have a feeling that even if a glacier ran over your head you will still tow the "consensus" line. Thanks for proving my point.

Ouch.

Still no show when it comes to refuting what I actually write... gee Gary...

You have written nothing to refute. You keep spewing the same BS over and over. Some scientist. geez

Search function here is a wonder. Thread after thread shows the prevailing scientific agreement versus Gary Sense.

Again, re-read what makes science superior to Gary Sense. Oversight, peer-review, and conclusion based on actual experimentation, not Google.

[GaryC 7]

FYI-

HIGH and constant levels of dietary fat DOES lead to heart disease.

Also, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Metabolic Syndrome, etc... etc... etc...

Something very capable in Western society.

So, if you regulate CO2 levels, then its obvious you will see stabilization. The world is not a vacuum nor is it a static environment. Gee, I think we've stated already we have seasons and tilt variations.

Head in the sand again? I just showed you that the consensus about fat was wrong. You just keep proving my point over and over.

And regulating CO2 will do nothing for the environment. I dare you to prove otherwise.

So you accept that CO2 interacts with infrared light, but you don't think that could be a bad thing?

Can I have your magic make Co2 begone button?

CO2 is the third largest component of our atmosphere. Much more comes from natural sources than man makes. One good volcano will out produce anything we can make. The environment also is a buffered system. As more is made then the environment reacts to offset it. In the past (before humans) CO2 levels went up all on their own. Also in the past the CO2 levels went back down all on their own. This has been happening for billions of years. What makes you think that us humans can throw the whole thing into a tail spin in less than 100 years? The so called scientists saw a change in temperature and a rise in CO2 and assumed that we caused it. That isn't science, it's arrogance.

[HAL 9000 96]

Let me try to explain so even you can understand. You keep touting the peer review process as the way scientists get their ideas validated. Well guess who does the peer review? The same scientists that have the aforementioned mind set! Anyone that comes along with an opposing view gets shot down. Take your reaction to my point of view. Your hostile and degrading of my opinion. You think you have all the answers. Your arrogance and self importance will not allow any other ideas. So as far as your concerned your opinions are useless.

Um hummm... and all this time I thought the answers were obtained after time spent researching meticulously. Maybe that's the difference between good science and the Cracker Jack science ignorantly propagated to support an opinion.

FYI... peer review is not infallible. When you submit something for review the scrutiny is placed not on your belief or your conclusion but rather on your experimental design and your interpretation of the data obtained. If the conclusions you obtain are not in agreement with the individual reviewer, comments are exchanged and discussed for clarification. Now you know something you didn't know before.

You know... kind of like proving a point with actual evidence obtained from research, not what others say.

Yo may call that BS and arrogant. We in science call it being educated. And yes, many in science are as arrogant as those irresponsibly touting false science as fact.

[GaryC 7]

Scientists are human and subject to the same weaknesses that plague us all. One of these weaknesses is the need to belong to the majority. Another is the unwillingness to admit that they were wrong. Yet one more is falling to peer pressure to be on the "right" side of an issue. Global Warming is one of those subjects that scientists are especially prone to knuckle under to these weaknesses. Add to that the political aspects and the fact that most scientists depend on funding from others and it no wonder that man made global warming has been so misrepresented.

Confusion between being accepted by the peer-review process and fitting in are two different things that one that has not published, independent of whether or not he/she is right or wrong as it pertains to a particular topic, in this particular scenario- does not understand. At least that is what my observation states based on what has been previously written.

Now... talking about funding... if the majority of US Scientists receive public funds, making us party to a US government position- as you so imply in this obervation, then there would not be any independent research not conclusions in this country. Maybe that explains why you can google up "scientists" that support private "foundation" conclusions that global warming does no exist but at least the US government and UN have rigorous scientific standards that are ethically met by the absolute majority of the scientific community in order for funding to proceed.

Also, if the scientific mainstream were to be completely dependent on a prevailing government opinion in order to procure funds, then by the aforementioned process the majority of public-funded scientists would not have scientific conclusions contrary to the present opinion prevalent in the US government. How's them apples.

:lol: Your pitiful. Why waste my time with someone that will not even consider an opposing view point? How very un-scientific of you. I have a feeling that even if a glacier ran over your head you will still tow the "consensus" line. Thanks for proving my point.

Ouch.

Still no show when it comes to refuting what I actually write... gee Gary...

You have written nothing to refute. You keep spewing the same BS over and over. Some scientist. geez

Search function here is a wonder. Thread after thread shows the prevailing scientific agreement versus Gary Sense.

Again, re-read what makes science superior to Gary Sense. Oversight, peer-review, and conclusion based on actual experimentation, not Google.

:lol: :lol:

What utter arrogance!! How do you keep from ripping your hat with a head that big?

[HAL 9000 96]

FYI-

HIGH and constant levels of dietary fat DOES lead to heart disease.

Also, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Metabolic Syndrome, etc... etc... etc...

Something very capable in Western society.

So, if you regulate CO2 levels, then its obvious you will see stabilization. The world is not a vacuum nor is it a static environment. Gee, I think we've stated already we have seasons and tilt variations.

Head in the sand again? I just showed you that the consensus about fat was wrong. You just keep proving my point over and over.

And regulating CO2 will do nothing for the environment. I dare you to prove otherwise.

So you accept that CO2 interacts with infrared light, but you don't think that could be a bad thing?

Can I have your magic make Co2 begone button?

CO2 is the third largest component of our atmosphere. Much more comes from natural sources than man makes. One good volcano will out produce anything we can make. The environment also is a buffered system. As more is made then the environment reacts to offset it. In the past (before humans) CO2 levels went up all on their own. Also in the past the CO2 levels went back down all on their own. This has been happening for billions of years. What makes you think that us humans can throw the whole thing into a tail spin in less than 100 years? The so called scientists saw a change in temperature and a rise in CO2 and assumed that we caused it. That isn't science, it's arrogance.

What percentage of the atmosphere? At what point in geological history?

You mention the word buffer. Care to elaborate about the dynamics of buffered reactions involving small and large-scale CO2 mediated temperature changes, be it from a volcano or be it from combustion or be it from artifical sources?

Maybe you can also revisit a little Earth History 101 and find that this planet has not had the same atmosphere throughout its evolution.

Maybe you can get a Nobel for discovering that Smoking killed the dinosaurs. Who knows... but it will be as usually interesting reading what new "science" you can come up with.

[dalegg 143]

As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850.

That 12th remaining year must have been really cold though!