Quoted for emphasis.

Scientists have made simple mistakes before why should it be any different now. Given we have more information to draw on now so they are less likely to make the same simple mistakes that they have made in the past. But there are always new things to learn and always new mistakes to be made.

Did he ever acctually say that it was the scientist that actually made the mistakes? Because it could very well just be the overblown rubbish of the media and governments. Infact i think that its what ive said through this entire topic that alot of it is just either made up or blown out of proportion to gain ratings in the media and Votes for the government. Al gores film scared people which made people interested in the topic which means that there is a demand for information on the subject and to keep that demand going for as long as possible the media make it into something bigger and more scary then it actually is to keep people interested. His argument was not directed at scientists specifically but more the flood of information we are getting on the subject from various places. The majority of which has either been so overblown by the media or made up that alot of it is illogical and easily proven wrong.

Edit: You have to rember that this is a thread on global warming in general and not just what the scientists have presented us with but what is being presented to us as a whole.

No, they publish research that agrees with the current consensus.

Let's look at the word 'publish' in two separate ways for a moment, shall we?

Way 1: To put forward a written paper on a topic.

Way 2: To have such a paper evaluated and officially included in some publication.


Insofar as Way 1 goes, I'm fairly sure that Josh is correct; there are plenty of scientists out there evaluating both sides of the equation, and most of them probably write up and present their findings to others. (Some may not, usually because they feel that they don't have enough evidence to support any theory one way or another.)

With Way 2, though, there's an additional hurdle to jump. At the moment, most of those individuals who have the right to evaluate material for publication (editors and their ilk), even in Science-based magazines, are adamantly in favor of the 'known' theory of Global Warming. As a result, those scientists whose research shows the consensus belief is in error are likely to be simply dropped during the evaluation stage as not matching what the editor 'knows' to be true. Those scientists whose research tends to back the consensus will be published in the written medium in question. Therefore, even when an actual dissent or disagreement does exist within the scientific community, the general public is unlikely to hear about it because the self-appointed gatekeepers of the community have themselves taken sides on the issue and are only permitting one side to escape.

Congratulations, James Maxwell. Your Demon has come home to roost. Not in the physical world itself, but in the minds of those who report on it.

Um, no. Publishers don't drop scientific data based on the sole fact that they disagree. It is the publisher's job to make sure the data is clear, precise, accurate, and meaningful. Scientific publishers do NOT publish based on their own biased views... these are research and University publicists.. Magazine publishers and the like do only choose stories that they think the public would be interested in.

yes Josh, they do. Especially in this case where publishing anything that's not in line with the religious Truth as confined by Al Gore and Greenpeace is likely to get your funding cut.

Publishers publish according to the wishes of those supplying their funds all the time, and "scientific" publications are no different.

If you believe that's not the case, you are seriously naive. In most glossies 90% of what's printed is essentially either propaganda or advertising.
In scientific mags that percentage is lower but in some "sciences" (especially the soft sciences and climatology) it's almost 100%.

And this is nothing new. In the 18th and 19th century it was generally believed that everything was known and science was only kept alive to fill in the little gaps to link different theories together.
The pioneers of things like quantum mechanics and nuclear physics found it almost impossible to publish because of that. Their ideas were rejected by the leaders of major universities, the very people who controlled the funding of the publishers (and often were the people approving publications).

It wasn't until several decades later that the general concensus started to shift and scientists opened their eyes to a new universe where things were quite different from what they had known to be true.

The same is going on in climatology today, except here there's a very strong outside political and financial interest to preserve one particular (unproven or more correctly proven incorrect) point of view and suppress real science to the benefit of politically correct pseudo-scientific gibberish.
Science is being perverted on a grand scale in climatology, with anyone daring to try and get the truth out liable to find himself thoroughly destroyed professionally by political interests opposed to the truth becoming known.
This is going as far as historical climate data in the UK and US being systematically altered to paint a deliberately incorrect picture of past climate in order to show that things have changed dramatically for the worse in recent years.

It goes as far as quite openly suppressing knowledge that would disprove the claims of the "environmentalist" movement, knowledge like the periodicity of stratospheric O3 concentrations.

What? I can't see all scientists posting data simply because their publishers and benefactors said to.. Theres no way that some scientist wouldn't publish truthful information.. Besides, global warming has two sides. The Republicans would rather it not be happening, its in their best interest if businesses didn't have to spend a buttload of cash 'saving' the environment from global warming.. Theres always two sides.. and I would think the republicans would be trying desperately to get scientific evidence out there that global warming is not occurring.. especially since they're typically the wealthier party.

If you do reseaarch on global warming, it will be very difficult to get funding, if you do not subscripe to the 'gorist' junk science view of things. As jwenting says, this view has been elevated to the status of a religion.

I do not think that a scientist is going to publish a paper or do research against global warming because nobody would give them the funding to do so. Mainly because it would make the company funding them look bad. Where as there is alot more funding out there for research proving it because it makes the company giving the funding look like they care about the enviroment.

All of the claims I presented as being global warming claims came from the Discovery Channel special as quotes by actual "experts".


So have I. I used to work in labs.

The thing here is that they can't really perform any experiments on the climate.


Not if they are working for Al Gore.


Try it yourself. Watch the Discovery Channel special and "An Inconvenient Truth." Be careful to look for the stupid science and the cases where they affirm the consequent.

Actually, I haven't. My arguments are that their arguments are not valid. We may be having global warming. But the arguments proffered by Al Gore and his henchmen are not valid.

One interesting fact is that Mars is also experiencing a melting of icecaps. This tends to indicate that any global warming has an external cause.