tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6967926036299059295.post770593891380243490..comments2023-03-23T05:55:21.158-05:00Comments on Ecocosmology: Email From 350 Dot OrgUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6967926036299059295.post-35204991059640987482009-12-21T14:21:56.562-06:002009-12-21T14:21:56.562-06:00Martin,
Ok.
Then I will say even if the emails ...Martin,<br /><br />Ok. <br /><br />Then I will say even if the emails showed a fraud, that is 4 or 5 scientists out of thousands upon thousands who do not do fraud.<br /><br />I do not think the emails show a fraud, but rather they show <i>some</i> bad judgment.<br /><br />Read <a href="http://ecocosmology.blogspot.com/2009/11/coldest-july-or-warmest-july.html" rel="nofollow">this post</a> and you will see that my understanding of global warming and global climate change could endure <a href="http://ecocosmology.blogspot.com/2009/11/disparate-or-equal-climate-change.html" rel="nofollow">even if we had ten cold years</a> in a row since 1998.<br /><br />I say this because in geological, climatological terms, ten years is nothing.<br /><br />The <a href="http://ecocosmology.blogspot.com/2009/11/parochial-climate-parochial-mentality.html" rel="nofollow">long range view</a> is where I focus.<br /><br />Finally, <a href="http://ecocosmology.blogspot.com/2009/10/damage-cannot-be-undone.html" rel="nofollow">CO2 is only one of several problems</a> we are making, any of which can cause catastrophe.<br /><br />Thanks for commenting and thinking.Dreddhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15673418865926403671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6967926036299059295.post-21152873811437313272009-12-21T13:11:10.812-06:002009-12-21T13:11:10.812-06:00Dredd,
I use the word "trust" intention...Dredd,<br /><br />I use the word "trust" intentionally and yes, I do use "trust" when it comes to scientific knowledge. I did not use the word "believe" because I do not think it's a matter of belief but rather facts, the way it should be when dealing with science. So having said that, I my self am not a climatologist (nor do I have a scientific background of any sort), therefor I can't make a valid ruling even if I had raw scientific data presented to me.<br />But I also haven't observed our Solar system in telescope, but I do "trust" astronomers when they say that Earth orbits Sun. Why? Because there are no other significant group of sientists claiming this not to be true, unlike the way it's with human induced global warming. And to make matters worse, there are these hacked emails which kind of prooves my point... So again, my question is, how can you "trust" an argument if a certain group of corrupt scientists have fuck_ed up so badly...<br /><br />I'm not arguing about climate change per se, I know that climate is changing, icecaps are melting and Africa (with many other places on Earth) is drying up. The whole discussion is about whether it's because of human induced CO2...Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08350511580778583267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6967926036299059295.post-30959854249207291842009-12-21T07:56:55.371-06:002009-12-21T07:56:55.371-06:00Martin,
This is a post directly from 350.org not ...Martin,<br /><br />This is a post directly from 350.org not from me. The word "trust" only appears in your comment, not in their post. Thus, you raise a straw man.<br /><br />But you did ask me something not even covered in their post, that is, you asked why do I "trust" an argument. <br /><br />I take it that "trust" is the way you deal with an argument then?<br /><br />I don't use a process of "trust" to deal for or against an argument. Instead, I use a process of proving by searching the available data, by reading widely, then seeing if there is support for that argument in the data.<br /><br />A conclusion, based upon the data and the argument, is the last thing I do.<br /><br />Trust is something for kids to do with their parents, or married couples to do with their vows.<br /><br />This is a matter of science, and the science is clear with no "trust" wanted.<br /><br />Those who are in denial about what is coming, caused by human error, must trust like you evidently do because they certainly do not have a grasp on reality available through mountains of research and reports.<br /><br />Here is a link to one post that points out the folly of your premise: <a href="http://ecocosmology.blogspot.com/2009/11/shadow-of-time-governs-earth.html" rel="nofollow">Shadow of Time Governs Earth</a>.<br /><br />Humans are responsible for damage to the earth. The sun cannot be blamed for <b>human overpopulation</b>, for <b>human destruction of forests</b>, for <b>human pollution</b>, the increasing <b>human caused species extinction</b>, nor anything else humans are doing to destroy the ecosystem.<br /><br />Call the <a href="http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2009/07/science-police.html" rel="nofollow">Science Police</a> if you think some scientists committed fraud. That is what the science police are for.<br /><br />If a competent prosecutor can prove a scientist actually did do fraud they will be punished.Dreddhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15673418865926403671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6967926036299059295.post-35555563345903993302009-12-20T17:52:25.743-06:002009-12-20T17:52:25.743-06:00why do you still expect people to trust the human ...why do you still expect people to trust the human induced global warming argument after the "Climat-gate" bustup ?Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08350511580778583267noreply@blogger.com