- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 127 Hour
- Reading permission
This post was edited by querist at 2013-5-1 12:49|
Revolutionar Post time: 2013-5-1 12:28
You have already fallen into the trap set by the Moranos and other no morals immoral rats.
I am a scientist. I am not a climate scientist, but I am a scientist and I am familiar with how research should be conducted. I have no political stake in this debate on either side.
There was no "blatant proof" in the quote that Seneca provided. Other than Vahrendorf's conflict of interest, which is quite enough to call his pronouncements into question, there was nothing in the article itself that was "blatant proof" of his bias. Just because someone disagrees with you does not automatically mean that that person is wrong. As a scientist, my role is to look at the facts and the data and arrive at a conclusion. The whole climate issue has become so overly politicized that it is very difficult to find anyone who is qualified to speak authoritatively on the issue that is not also heavily politicized one way or the other. This makes a proper scientific debate on the issue very difficult to hold.
I don't even know who Morano is other than someone who is known for opposing the whole anthropogenic climate change theory. Remember, correlation does not equal causation. One of the problems is that even the climate DATA are being questioned. It is difficult to discuss the causes of a problem if we can't even agree that there is an actual problem.
The whole issue is so politicized that it is difficult to hold a proper scientific discussion on it any more. It is very frustrating for those of us who simply want to know what is really happening. I don't care about the politics. I want to know, and "to know" here includes having solid scientific support, whether there is truly significant climate change that his happening outside of normal cycles that are brought about by various factors and if there is that climate change, what is causing it. Once we know the cause, we can determine what, if anything, can be done.
There's too much money on both sides of this issue in the hands of people who stand to reap significant financial benefits if the debate goes their way. I just want HONEST science. If there's a problem, then prove it so we can stop trying to prove it and we can find the cause. If we can PROVE that the cause is people, then we can obviously do something about it. If we can't prove that the cause is people, then we need to find the real cause so we can determine if anything can be done because if the cause is not people we still may be able to slow or reverse the change, but we are not doing anything about the actual cause.
Again, I am not qualified as a climate scientist or a meteorologist, but I am a scientist. I can usually recognize bad "science" when I see it, but that recognition only goes so far. If the data are invalid for whatever reason, the conclusions may be correct based on the inaccurate data while actually being incorrect because the data are wrong. "Garbage in, garbage out", as the old saying goes.
And the IPCC is so mired in controversy that it is hard to take it seriously as a scientific body any more. I'm glad I'm in a far less controversial field.