Global Climate Change

[Wobbler]

...both sides have so called scientists, who can MAKE any conclusions they want.

If you truly think that experts are all lying in order to make money, I feel sorry for you. It can't be pleasant to be that cynical.

In the scientific community, valid data and correct interpretations are actually pretty important. It's true that we occasionally fall in love with our own hypotheses and try to pick data that support them, but that's just not sustainable once other people get involved. The consensus opinion is pretty reliable.

[Double Dare]

It's true that we occasionally fall in love with our own hypotheses and try to pick data that support them,

... or just ignore reality and stick your head in the sand (not directed towards you Wobbler).

[argonaut11xx]

It's true that we occasionally fall in love with our own hypotheses and try to pick data that support them,

This sum up the debate completely.

[jerrym]

This sum up the debate completely.

You must be looking at yourself in the mirror when you side with the 24 climate change denier research papers rather than the 13,926 peer-reviewed articles with evidence supporting the hypotheses they were testing. As is so typical of climate change deniers, you present no evidence, just denial. This is similar to the cigarette industry's denials of smoking's connection to cancer because the climate change deniers have copied the cigarette industry's approach to evidence against their interests.

In fact, the number 1 climate change denier, Willie Wei-hock Soon, has just been discredited on February 24th, 2015 (see below).

Major newspapers boasted front page headlines shaking up the climate change denialcommunity yesterday after Greenpeace released documents linking corporate funding to Willie Wei-hock Soon, a major source of science supporting the viewpoints of people who question whether mankind is causing global warming. The papers, acquired by Greenpeace via a freedom of information act request, demonstrate that the scientific publications resulting from this funding do not comply with ethical practices for disclosing conflicts of interest.The Washington Post calls Willie Wei-hock Soon the "high priest" of climate change denialists. The New York Times compares the denialists to Big Tobacco, using money to generate the appearance of scientific doubt.
A look at the papers uncovered by Greenpeace indicates that these statements are not hyperbole. Of course, finding funding can be hard work, and a lot of what Willie Wei-hock Soon writes in his proposals could be mistaken as efforts to get money for serious science. We also want to emphasize that good science requires some people to investigate hypotheses that run counter to the accepted wisdom. But when corporate funding steps in, science goes terribly off track on a couple of key points.
One could perhaps overlook the fact that calling research papers 'deliverables' makes it sound like a consulting effort rather than a scientific pursuit. Including power-point presentations for lobbying in the expected outcomes of the research rather puts the objectivity of the project in question.

http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-...cientists.html

[argonaut11xx]

This is similar to the cigarette industry's denials of smoking's connection to cancer because the climate change deniers have copied the cigarette industry's approach to evidence against their interests.

I agree that there is "climate change", however global warming is another story. Funny you bring up the cigarette company's. I find the "Pot-Head" lobbiest in a very similar boat. Smoking of ANY kind is dumb, especially the turbo-charged DOPE thats around these days. If people want it for medical reasons, take it in PILL form.

Im not against being kind to old mother nature, i just find it very OBVIOUS, that its a battle of INDUSTRIES, (Green Business vs Big Business).

[Wobbler]

I find the "Pot-Head" lobbiest in a very similar boat. Smoking of ANY kind is dumb...

It's a shame that you don't trust science, because this has been studied. Cannabis tar does indeed contain some of the same carcinogens as tobacco tar (e.g. ref), and certainly isn't "safe". Exposure rates are much lower, though; there's no equivalent of a "pack-a-day" cannabis smoker.

Back to climate change: Willie Soon may be a mediocre researcher, but I'm impressed by the way other scientists have rallied to support him against governmental interference. The problem isn't that scientists are doing a bad job of getting answers - it is that some politicians are choosing to believe fringe scientists instead of trusting the overwhelming majority.

[Double Dare]

- it is that some politicians are choosing to believe fringe scientists instead of trusting the overwhelming majority.

... because of the pressures of big businesses and the money to be made. Harper was crying when gas prices fell ... not only was he losing money for his coffers (budget, with an upcoming election), but "The Patch" (his money-making machine, and an environmental disaster area) was also crying the blues.