College Republican Federation of Virginia

Comment from Eric the 1/2 troll
Time: January 2, 2008, 9:31 am

“The IPCC has about 2,500 members.”

This represent 400 people not all of which are IPCC members. So we are talking about 10% of IPCC members hold a contrary opinion to the conclusions reached on Global Warming causes. Sure sounds like a consensus to me.

If these scientists were truly scientists, they would spend less time on political op-ed grandstanding and more time working on testing and refining global warming theories in peer reviewed settings. When they do so, they will garner the respect for their theories that they seek.

Comment from Grozet
Time: January 2, 2008, 11:51 am

These 400 scientists are not a collective group. A Senate committee held an investigation and found these 400.

In response to your comment about publicly seeking attention; the IPCC is a public relations group for all effective purposes. They and Al Gore have basically made is near impossible for scientists to get grants to oppose global warming.

Thus, the only way to open this theory up to scrutiny is via a similar media operation . . . which they aren’t doing.

p.s. the close the debate comment was a joke. I was making fun of Al Gore’s authoritarian type comment that the “debate is closed”

Comment from Eric the 1/2 troll
Time: January 2, 2008, 1:10 pm

Grozet,

Nobody should get grants to “oppose” or support anything. Grants should be given to test and refine theories. Sorry, I do not buy the ideas that there is some great conspiracy that diasllows solid scientific research on global warming and its causes. Theories will always be tested and I promise that most every serious peer reviewed test of the global warming theory will indeed get funding. Any “study” based on poor science should not get funding.

The debate is whether the preponderance of peer reviewed science has concluded that global warming is man-induced. Apparently, the concensus in the IPCC at least is that it has. Based on this, they suggest action in conjunction with continued science. I see no problem with that approach.

Comment from Grozet
Time: January 2, 2008, 3:58 pm

Eric,

You have a very idealistic view of the grant process. From my general understanding of the process of receiving grants, they are handed out in a political way. In the very least, they are not handed out in an ideology free type neutral vacuum.

Public perception holds that global warming is real. If the public and a supposed scientific consensus exist then why would grants be readily handed out to people who would deny the assumed instead of those who seek to add to an assumed premise? Especially when this assumed premise brings with itself the possibility of making money. There is already a global warming driven economy that would effectively collapse if the theory was disproved. No more carbon credit forests, no more wasting our time with wind farms, green neighborhoods and so on.

Finally, the general point of the post was to show there are scientists who disagree with this theory (along with people of public status). These people seem to agree on two items. A) disbelieving scientists are looked down upon for their views and B) grants for research are denied on the basis that global warming needs not be investigated more since there is a “consensus”.

Comment from Raz
Time: January 3, 2008, 5:04 pm

So much evidence is shown on both sides of the fence on this issue that I don’t know who to believe. Check out this video that give very compelling evidence that global warming is a big swindle http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6772058898203776825&q=Great+Global+Warming+Swindle+site%3Avideo.google.com&total=24&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2.
I do believe however that using non renewable sources of energy for electricity and car fuel is a formula that heads us toward disaster. Solar may soon be an affordable option to solve the electricity problem. Nanosolar is showing huge promise and Citizenre has an affordable marketing plan. I follow both on my blog at http://www.solarjoules.com.

Comment from Grozet
Time: January 3, 2008, 7:25 pm

thanks for the links raz

Comment from Eric the 1/2 troll
Time: January 4, 2008, 12:04 pm

Might want to look to http://www.realclimate.org for good discussions of the actual science involoved (at least in my idealistic view). A good example is the 1/4 posting:

“When declaring that climate models are misleading in a high profile paper, maybe looking at some model output first would be a good idea….”

Comment from Grozet
Time: January 6, 2008, 3:09 am

added to my list of sites to read before my next post on global warming, thanks Eric