Well, maybe I did misspeak a little, because I should have said most environmental scientists believe global warming does not exist, instead of saying most scientists. A small assumption on my part. For example, I really don't care what a psychologist believes about global warming any more than I care what Al gore believes, because they are not only not experts in this matter, but the have not even been trained in this area. (Yes, I do think some scientists could be fooled into believing global warming exists, just like a lot of the gullible public does.) Using a computer model to try to predict what an extremely complex system will do, for the next 100 years, when there are so many variables whose exact effect and interrelationship with the other variables isn't even really known, is nonsense. Most scientists and intelligent people understand that.
Ask any computer programmer how he goes about writing a program. (I happen to have a degree in computer sciences, so I know how it is done.) Typically, a programmer or team is given a bunch of data and told to write a program to crunch those numbers to achieve a certain result. (That's science?) In a computer model, they would be told how to crunch that data, instead of what results to achieve. How many variables are they really using? How accurate are the "how to crunch" instructions. I can assure you, they are missing tons of input data that they haven't even thought of, and any very small mistakes in the "how to crunch" could easily throw their projections way off (considering how far into the future they are trying to predict). After all, that's why NASA changed their positon on global warming. They found mistakes in the "how to crunch the data" part of the computer model. Once they fixed it, no more evidence to suggest global warming. Did you know they used those computer models using historic data and they couldn't even come up with numbers to reflect todays conditions? If you can't make a program accuratly come up with the correct results using historic data, how could you ever make it accuratly predict something in the future?
Other than that, I stand by my statement, I will carefully revise it a little for you.
Most environmental scientists do not believe that global warming exists, nor that we are the cause of it. Again, most meaning 1/2 plus one.
Again, I have found many articles that state most don't believe it and those articles had poll results to back them up. I have found many articles that "claimed" most believe it, but they were all by environmental groups and they never have any polls to back them up. (Except for one I found by greenpeace, and they spun it so bad it was unbelievable. They grouped the undecideds in with the believes in it group, and compared that to the don't believe in it group.)
Which articles would an intelligent person believe? The ones with the evidence that say most don't, or the ones without evidence that say most do?
Are you familiar with statistical analysis?
Do you know how many environmental scientists there would have to be in the world, for the margin of error in those polls to be large enough, that in a worse case scenario (maximum margin of error possible, assumed to be in your favor), to get to the point where the poll percentages plus or minus the margin of error, could get you down to 50% or less, so you could then claim that it might not be most? And that's assuming a maximum margin of error in your favor! If it was in my favor, it would mean an even larger percentage of scientists that don't believe in it. It would be a huge number of environmental scientist indeed, considering the sample size of the polls and how many percentage points you would have to move.
(Frankly, I don't really even care if it is most or not. That doesn't prove that global warming exists or not. After all, it only takes one person to be right. What I do care about is all the people in the press talking about it like it is fact, when in reality it is a theory that many/most don't believe because of the many flaws in it that have already been found.)
For instance, when most who believe in global warming think CO2 is the main culprit, how can you explain the data that shows most of the warming in the past 150 years occurred before 1940, while CO2 production hadn't really even started yet? How do you explain that far less warming occured after we started producing large amounts of CO2? Wouldn't the assumed warming process increase after we started polluting instead of decrease?
Why all the revisions in the projections the computer models produce? Considering the projections have already been changed multiple times, why would you assume they are accurate now?
Why do satellites show a cooling in the past 20 years while land based sites show a warming?
Frankly, I don't think most people in general would believe in global warming when asked these questions, much less people trained in critical thinking and science.
Once these questions, among others, are answered, then it might qualify as a good theory. But it would still be a vary long way from being called a fact.
Let me ask this one more time (I'm getting tired of asking you!) What evidence do you have that my statement is false? I have shown you evidence to back it up (multiple articles quoting different polls). Instead of claiming my statements are outlandish or lies, and always asking me to prove what I have stated (which I always do with evidence), why not try to disprove my statement with some evidence instead? Is it because there is no evidence to that effect?
Rodney
) I guess I would need to take some lessons from Badhdad Bob in order to believe as pulatus does. "The Americans are loosing, they are not in Baghdad, do not believe them!"-LOL
