View Single Post
Old 05-26-2009, 11:18 AM   #45
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
I see, Climatologists, Geologists, Meteorologists with doctorates in their fields don't know much about AGW?
The vast majority accept that the current situation is anthropogenic, so that doesn't really matter. There are probably biologists out there who for some reason or another state they don't believe in evolution, too.

Also considering that Antarctica's Ice concentration has INCREASED over the past 10 years...
Far as I know, this is to be expected due to increased precipitation (snowfall in Antarctica's case). Again, as I've already stated, AGW means that some areas get warmer while others get colder. Some areas of Antarctica, which is a large continent, are very likely growing in size, but others are experiencing accelerated melting, and the net result is a loss of ice. This is to be expected.

To my knowledge.

Classic Creationist argument - "there's no consensus, lots of scientists disagree, but the ones who don't follow the dogmas get silenced because {insert arbitrary theory here}". Same spear, new game.

You're making the mistake of looking at science as you do an organized religion, in which dogmas are laid down by authorities for religious and political reasons, and whoever tries to put forward new thoughts is punished or even kicked out of the church. This is the polar opposite of how scientists operate. Scientists, and anyone else using the scientific method, arrive at their conclusions by testing hypotheses, for then to do everything they can to disprove them. If someone tomorrow was to utterly and completely shoot down the scientific notion that the Earth is flat, the Theory of Evolution is real, or that the Earth orbits the Sun, he'd be awarded a Nobel prize and remembered as a genius.

I don't know who the "inquisition" in your cartoon represents, but if it's scientists, the cartoon simply has no backing in reality.

But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.
OK, let's accept, for the sake of discussion, that if you do produce results contrary to AGW, you lose your funding? Question then is - why? Just because they disagree with the established dogma? Highly unlikely in my ears. A far more believable scenario is that their research turns out to not be sound.

Last edited by Dagobahn Eagle; 06-09-2009 at 04:03 PM.
Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,