Posted on 05/14/2010 1:57:57 PM PDT by neverdem
To what extent is climate change actually occuring? Late last year, climate researchers were accused of exaggerating study results. SPIEGEL ONLINE has since analyzed the hacked "Climategate" e-mails and provided insights into one of the most unprecedented spats in recent scientific history.
Is our planet warming up by 1 degree Celsius, 2 degrees, or more? Is climate change entirely man made? And what can be done to counteract it? There are myriad possible answers to these questions, as well as scientific studies, measurements, debates and plans of action. Even most skeptics now concede that mankind -- with its factories, heating systems and cars -- contributes to the warming up of our atmosphere.
But the consequences of climate change are still hotly contested. It was therefore...
--snip--
However, it seems all but impossible to provide conclusive proof in climate research. Scientific philosopher Silvio Funtovicz foresaw this dilemma as early as 1990. He described climate research as a "postnormal science." On account of its high complexity, he said it was subject to great uncertainty while, at the same time, harboring huge risks.
The experts therefore face a dilemma: They have little chance of giving the right advice. If they don't sound the alarm, they are accused of not fulfilling their moral obligations. However, alarmist predictions are criticized if the predicted changes fail to materialize quickly.
Climatological findings will probably remain ambiguous even if further progress is made. Weingart says it's now up to scientists and society to learn to come to terms with this. In particular, he warns, politicians must understand that there is no such thing as clear results. "Politicians should stop listening to scientists who promise simple answers," Weingart says.
(Excerpt) Read more at spiegel.de ...
Once there was modern science, which was hard work; now we have postmodern science, where the quest for real, absolute truth is outdated, and "science" is a wax nose that can be twisted in any direction to underpin the latest lying narrative in the pursuit of power. Except they didn't call it ‘postmodern' science because then we might smell a rat. They called it PNS (post-normal science) and hoped we wouldn't notice.
For those in Rio Linda, “sounding the alarm” is NewSpeak for qualifying for government grants and other forms of “free money”.
Science enslaved to deeply held political convictions.
It’s a disgrace.
“Even most skeptics now concede that mankind — with its factories, heating systems and cars — contributes to the warming up of our atmosphere.”
Not this one!
So is a whole bunch of other stuff.
Example: Earth being hit by a sufficiently large comet or asteroid would have economic and ecological effects orders of magnitude beyond any conceivable effect of AGW. Yet since it's unlikely to occur in the next few years nobody worries about it.
Quite true, but wrong question. Quantities matter in this case.
Does AGW contribute 0.1%, 1%, 10%, 50% or 90% to observed warming? If on the low end of the scale, any changes we could possibly make would have absolutely zero useful effect.
Anybody interested in applying this paradigm to GWB's "lies" about WMDs in Iraq and pre-emptive strikes in general?
I thought not.
Wait just a minute. I thought the science was "settled."
Or ever.
The problem with these “expert scientists” is that they want me to believe that the ice in my glass of iced tea is melting because I’ve got an SUV parked in my driveway. These “expert scientists” are nothing but a bunch of greedy, money hungry morons looking forward to their next taxpayer financed, free cruise to the North and South Poles to check on the polar bears and the thickness of the ice. They all should be in jail. A hoax is a hoax and a scam is a scam. You only need to have the brains and the ability to recognize them when they come along.
Best description I've heard is AGW is the equivalent of adding 1/2 teaspoon (2.5 milliliters) of Sulfuric Acid to your Olympic-sized swimming pool. Unless it splashes you directly, the acidic effect is quickly neutralized, and on-going chemical processes break it down to inert compounds.
Here's another pic of the problem:
AGW is a FRAUD!
If it is true, windmills and solar power will contribute to greater amounts of CO2 in the early years and advance the onslaught of GW. It takes 3.3 tons of steel per Megawatt to build a natural gas power plant, and for a windmill it takes 462 tons of steel - the tower. Steel is made from met coal!!!
If GW is true, we are better off adapting to a warmer climate anyway - we can farm again in Greenland, like the Vikings!!!!
People will survive - and do nicely.
I am tired of the billion dead bull$hit - because every prediction these idiots made is wrong!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.