HoustonDavid wrote:Randall, since you admit you have no scientific credentials, your credibility only comes from your belief that what you read is true, and the only thing you can share is that firm belief in those pick-and-choose authors whose opinions you choose to agree with, although you don't seem to share much about your sources, nor any arguments you
have read that agree with AGW. You don't have the creds to pick and choose whom you
agree with on an educated basis.
So what you're saying is there is no possible way I or anyone else can assess credibility on this subject unless we have a science PHD? Critical thinking skills combined with a solid understanding of the fundamental principles of science are of no use?
HoustonDavid wrote:Why on earth should we choose to agree with you since you only have a library card and a computer, not a science PhD like nearly all of the scientists who agree with AGW based on their research on the subject.
There are plenty of highly accomplished scientists with PhDs that say "no" to AGW based precisely on their research on the it. Climate science is actually a multifaceted subject, but the fundamental scientific principles that govern it are no different than any other field.
HoustonDavid wrote:Try submitting your theories or findings to a legitimate science publication and see how far you get.
What theories are you talking about?
HoustonDavid wrote:BTW, nearly all of the AGW scientists keep even better track of what is being published on the subject than you do.
I'm not saying this isn't true, but how could you possibly know if it is or not? There is a ton of stuff in the scientific literature related to the subject - much of it dating back decades.
HoustonDavid wrote:You and Cyril claim it is strictly a political conspiracy, all economically inspired to force us into bankruptcy so the conspiratorial "they" (whoever "they" may be) can take over, but that is as absurd as the flying saucer conspiracy, or claiming President Obama is a socialist or a communist Muslim also trying to take over the country. Just another of your conspiracy theories wrapped up in pseudo-science mumbo-jumbo.
Look, I don't think Obama is Muslim imposter trying to "take down" the country, nor do I believe in the whole birther thing (though it is somewhat suspicious); but even if it's true that he is not truly a natural born citizen - I don't think he's a planted imposter, so it matters not. I think he's an American that doesn't like this country as it was founded and wants to change it - move it far left. AGW is going to give him and others of his ilk around world that are sympathetic to the cause a huge amount of the power and control over the average citizen that they need to implement their agenda. It's simply convenient to believe it because it's such a useful tool. In other words they want it to be true, so when someone with scientific credentials tells them it's true, that's all they need or want to hear.
You're implying I'm saying it's some kind of conspiracy in the sense that a bunch of people got together in a room and conspired to make all this up. I know of no evidence of that happening, nor do I believe that has happened. There is long history to this whole thing that started over 50 years ago (I'm not going to go into it here). The key thing you need to understand is that scientists in general know that if they do research that doesn't have any significant implications, they are not likely to get any more funding and their careers and livelihoods will suffer as a result. If they produce research results that have alarming or very significant implications, they will get noticed and more research money will come their way from sources who are looking for it. If they produce results that conclude there's really nothing of significance here - "yeah maybe a slight amount of warming but nothing to be concerned about or do anything about", they aren't likely to get any more research money. Scientists have to make a living too, and don't forget they are just people - prone to bias, dishonesty, and self-serving tendencies like most. There is a lot of money in climate research - I mean millions of dollars in government funded grants and such. I didn't take long for a lot of them to realize they could make a nice and lucrative research career out of the whole thing if they just kept up the alarmist mantra and continued to produce research supporting it. It's not hard to manipulate research to a desired outcome. I'm sure initially there were a good number of scientists who did research showing contradictory results and/or many who asked questions and raised objections, that wouldn't tow the party line so to speak, but they were ignored and over time filtered out of the process - their contrary research, questions and objections never addressed.
One thing I am absolutely 100% certain of is that the research that's been done supposedly in support of AGW is most certainly NOT the result of careful, objective and skeptical work - what science at its core is supposed to be all about.
You need to be much more skeptical of scientific research in general, especially that which is as politically charged and funding biased as this particular field.