NASA Chief Questions Global Warming as a "problem"

[EricH]

So because a majority of climatologists say it's true, it must be true?

Of course not. But doesn't it weigh in at all?

I guess I'm just wondering why you felt the need to contribute this site's skewed coverage of the global warming issue. I'm not saying we should immediately dismiss the minority opinion, but why accord it ALL the press? Can't we at least pretend for a moment that this site is scientifically honest?

"Skewed" according to your opinion. 50 years from now your view of Global Warming could be laughable and the "skewed" view could be considered the voice of reason.

See, that's true science. It allows and accepts such possibilities, which means it does not become dogmatic on such issues.

I believe Global Warming exists - I believe man has contributed somewhat to it. I believe we need to stop polluting. At the same time, I allow for the change I am wrong, thus I post and allow for dissenting opinions.

"Science" has become a bit to totalitarian in its view on who gets to speak and who doesn't. Modern science puts to shame what Hugo Chavez is doing with his media corporations.

Thats true. In the 1970's a majority of scientists believed we were heading into a period of global cooling. It just goes to show you

[The Lorax]

Thats true. In the 1970's a majority of scientists believed we were heading into a period of global cooling. It just goes to show you

Untrue. The majority of scientists did not believe it. (Nor would the majority belief of scientists be particularly relevent since the majority of scientists are not experts in climate.)

It just goes to show you

What does it show us, Eric? (Or more accurately, what would it show us, had it been true?) Since scientists have been wrong in the past, we should throw all the current paradigms out the window? Hmm. Well doctors have been wrong in the past, but I'm guessing you still trust them with your medical concerns.

[The Lorax]

"Science" has become a bit to totalitarian in its view on who gets to speak and who doesn't. Modern science puts to shame what Hugo Chavez is doing with his media corporations.

I just noticed this again.

Your totalitarian/communist comparison is hammy and misdirected, AK. As I said earlier, who "speaks" in science equates to who publishes. Peer-reviewed journals have standards which creationists and IDers consistently fail to meet. Too bad. The second level of who "speaks" comprises the press, which scientists can't control, whereas Chavez can. Strike two against your comparison. Thirdly and ironically, you've ignored the role of George W. Bush, someone who actually does wield quasi-totalitarian power over science. Don't hear you whining about him, though. (Could it be because of his position on ID?)

"Bush Distorts Science"

http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2004/02/62339

"President Bush Stifles Science"

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/ap_...sh_science.html

"Scientists Say Research Ignored, Evaluated 'Politically'"

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/08/...in1109280.shtml

"Bush Misuses Science Data"

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...75BC0A9659C8B63

[apothanein kerdos]

As I said earlier, who "speaks" in science equates to who publishes. Peer-reviewed journals have standards which creationists and IDers consistently fail to meet. Too bad.

Because of the Nazi regime you support that you call science...that's the only reason it's rejected.

True science is open to all ideas, even if they contradict our metaphysical propositions. The Stalinists you support, however, don't do this. Even if the article is good science, many will reject a piece just because it supports ID. I attended a lecture where someone actually bragged about being a referee for a pro-ID article. He dismissed it, saying the conclusions didn't follow the evidence without ever reading the article. He knew it was pro-ID from a few sentences, so he just outright denied it.

I've given you evidence after evidence to show how ID'ers are persecuted by these snakes, and you've simply ignored it. Functionally, you are becoming an atheist.

You are supporting a corrupt and totalitarian system. You are becoming part of it.

[The Lorax]

Because of the Nazi regime you support that you call science...that's the only reason it's rejected.

...Or because they fail to meet the standards. I can understand why they would see themselves as victims of ideological persecution, but luckily no one humors their delusion.

I've given you evidence after evidence to show how ID'ers are persecuted by these snakes, and you've simply ignored it. Functionally, you are becoming an atheist.

You are supporting a corrupt and totalitarian system. You are becoming part of it.

Laughing out loud. You've given me a handful of anecdotes of questionable persecution. That's a long way from proving there is global, systematic suppression of scientific thought. That's like saying "Look at these high school teachers who may have been wrongly fired. Modern education is bunk!"

[apothanein kerdos]

Because of the Nazi regime you support that you call science...that's the only reason it's rejected.

...Or because they fail to meet the standards. I can understand why they would see themselves as victims of ideological persecution, but luckily no one humors their delusion.

I've given you evidence after evidence to show how ID'ers are persecuted by these snakes, and you've simply ignored it. Functionally, you are becoming an atheist.

You are supporting a corrupt and totalitarian system. You are becoming part of it.

Laughing out loud. You've given me a handful of anecdotes of questionable persecution. That's a long way from proving there is global, systematic suppression of scientific thought. That's like saying "Look at these high school teachers who may have been wrongly fired. Modern education is bunk!"

The same argument you're using is generally what people use against discrimination. "You mean there aren't any black people tenured at your university? Oh, well they just didn't meet the qualifications."

So even though I can supply quotes of scientists saying Christians shouldn't be admitted into scientific programs until they accept naturalistic evolution, even though I can supply case after case of professors being denied tenure, even though I can show you how Gonzalez was denied tenure because of his belief in ID quoted directly from someone that voted no on his tenure, even though I can show you how a journal editor suffered persecution for allowing a pro-ID piece through...even though I can go on showing all of this, you're just going to call it all anecdotal?

By your standard, all the evidence for the Holocaust victims being innocent is just "anecdotal" as well. How do we know that they weren't just trying to usurp the government?

[DarkNebulaWelder]

I personally believe that changes are in order, but I also don't think the situation is a dire as Al Gore or the other people on the environmental bandwagon would lead us to believe. I just think that we are going through climatic changes.

After all, back in the 70's, wasn't the scientific consensus generally that the Earth was on the verge of another "ice age?" I just think that the whole thing plays on people's emotions...and as we all know, people are often persuaded more by passion than fact.

Although, if emissions trading is not regulated, I do see a problem coming about in certain parts of the globe...and if the truly pollutant countries are able to buy out the less pollutant countries' carbon credits, this could definitely pose a problem....and what happens in one country more than likely trickle into other parts of the world.

[forrestkc]

As I said earlier, who "speaks" in science equates to who publishes. Peer-reviewed journals have standards which creationists and IDers consistently fail to meet. Too bad.

Because of the Nazi regime you support that you call science...that's the only reason it's rejected.

True science is open to all ideas, even if they contradict our metaphysical propositions. The Stalinists you support, however, don't do this. Even if the article is good science, many will reject a piece just because it supports ID. I attended a lecture where someone actually bragged about being a referee for a pro-ID article. He dismissed it, saying the conclusions didn't follow the evidence without ever reading the article. He knew it was pro-ID from a few sentences, so he just outright denied it.

I've given you evidence after evidence to show how ID'ers are persecuted by these snakes, and you've simply ignored it. Functionally, you are becoming an atheist.

You are supporting a corrupt and totalitarian system. You are becoming part of it.

Good gosh. A bit over the top don't you think? You are comparing the scientific community to Nazis and Stalinists because modern science does not allow the supernatural to be a variable in a scientific theory.

Challenging the consensus is the hallmark of science. However, redefining modern science to such an extent that one has to do away with the Scientific Method is not. You are calling The National Academy of Science a bunch of Nazis simply because they think its a bad idea to throw away the scientific method and allow the supernatural as a plausible variable in peer reviewed science.

Allowing ID to be considered a legitimate Scientific Theory and thus redefining science to allow the non-falseifiable supernatural to be a variable in peer reviewed papers, would be just like me writing a new programming language, but when submitting it to the EMCA for review and standardization, blaming any bugs for which no apparent cause could be easily be found on an intelligent entity that existed outside of the machine code. If I did this my entire submission would be rejected out of hand.

However, if the ID bunch was actually successful in redefining science, then such a submission would be legitimate computer science. If a programer had some difficulty repreducing a bug or finding a memory leak, they could just blame it on an outside intelligent entity and move on. Drug makers could blame side effects on an intelligent entity and it would still be legitimate science. This is the end result of what you are proposing.

[apothanein kerdos]

See Forrest, that just doesn't reach the level of intelligence I'm looking for. It doesn't deal with what I'm saying and, in fact, it bit back into the argument against naturalism (you're using naturalism to defend naturalism).

[EricH]

Thats true. In the 1970's a majority of scientists believed we were heading into a period of global cooling. It just goes to show you

Untrue. The majority of scientists did not believe it. (Nor would the majority belief of scientists be particularly relevent since the majority of scientists are not experts in climate.)

It just goes to show you

What does it show us, Eric? (Or more accurately, what would it show us, had it been true?) Since scientists have been wrong in the past, we should throw all the current paradigms out the window? Hmm. Well doctors have been wrong in the past, but I'm guessing you still trust them with your medical concerns.

It shows us that when things get politicized, good science is not always the result. people are constantly referring to the number of scientists that believe in Global Warming as prrof that it is true, and that the results they are predicting will come to pass. But, when shown errors from the past that numerous scientists believe, they want to say "the numbers don't matter"

The bottom line is that it wasn't true, although the scientists who were touting it were just as convinced as the ones who tout warming now. Why should we believe the current "concinced" as opposed to the past "convinced"?