Climate Change: A Summary of the Science

Not so fast, my friend. A lot of key people with a LOT of money are hedging their bets on that:

global-cooling-and-the-new-world-order

Hi Usbport,

Did you see this article? I thought it was very interesting, especially this excerpt:

"What's worse though is that when someone has firmly accepted something this way, it's nearly impossible to prove the truth to them. Think about a cult that says the world will end on a certain date. When the time comes and goes, the cult members don't realize they've been had and move on with their lives, they start rationalizing it, saying that they changed god's mind somehow. In many cases, being confronted with the truth will only make the mislead person believe his or her convictions even more strongly."

Mike

That perspective goes both ways as seen with religions. Who is to say that the study in the article wasn't flawed by the family members not remembering the person being lost in the mall especially since they only studied 4 people. 4 people hardly meets any scientific criteria. I can't remember everything that has happened to my daughter. My own mother doesn't remember me being lost at King's Island theme park when I was 10.

This is an engineering and scientific forum. Let's stick to the peer reviewed studies.

That perspective goes both ways as seen with religions. Who is to say that the study in the article wasn't flawed by the family members not remembering the person being lost in the mall especially since they only studied 4 people.

Of course.

The only adjective I used about the article was "interesting".

Yes, I saw that article and I agree it was very fascinating.

Goes along with the fact that 'eyewitness' testimony is the least reliable type of evidence in a trial. Also goes along with the old saying that people see what they want to see.

IMO, conspiracy theorists don't debunk scientific studies. You need to look at this, and this. I have yet to see a scientific study conducted and peer reviewed that debunks climate change.

Now, before global warming was discovered (for lack of a better term atm), global cooling was a concern because we should have started our decent into the next ice age a few years ago. The graph showing the global pattern of ice ages is in this video.

"I have yet to see a scientific study conducted and peer reviewed that debunks climate change."

Well that's exactly part of the problem found with the 'Climategate' discoveries -- that the peer review process had been deliberately distorted and contrary scientific studies were suppressed. But if you look closely enough via other sources, the alternate view can be found along with the scientific data that provide some evidence. Here's a sampling:

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/30/nasa-data-worse-than-climategate-data/

http://climateaudit.org/

http://sonicfrog.net/?p=2849

http://reason.com/blog/2010/02/02/climategate-update-1-the-china

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-noaa-and-nasa-complicit-in-data-manipulation/

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/04/polar-ice-review/

I see New Orleans and Hurricane Katrina as a good analogy to the climate change debate. The levee system withstood storm tides, Mississippi flood surges, and other potential disasters for years. Each time the residents of New Orleans wiped their brows, said, "Whew, we survived that." and went on with their business. In general they always assumed the system was adequate. There were those who knew different, but for one reason or another, the levee system was never properly upgraded and the public didn't seem to care or just never found out about it. It took Katrina to get everyone to realize that the levee system was not sufficient.

Unfortunately, it seems as if we're going to need a smoking gun, something we can directly connect to global warming, before full consensus will be acknowledged. The evidence is there. There are simply too many people willing to obfuscate the truth. To what end, I can't imagine.

"How long will it take for the general public and members of this BB to accept the science?"

Only as long as it takes to expunge the politics from the subject.