Forbes is an organization devoted to the coverage of business and is highly reputable. I have never known anyone on here to claim they are not fair-minded, but if it suits you, Google it and go to the National Press Club website, which is where Forbes got the press release.

 

There are over 9,000 PhD's included in the signing.

 

If the numbers don't impress you, I don't ever again want to hear you argue that the number of people who believe in the theory 'can't be wrong,' and your first post seems, in light of numbers, to be questionable. If you put 100 scientists in a room to look at the same data, and 60 say it looks like global warming, and 40 say it doesn't, I don't think it means 'you win.' It means that there is a question, something that merits continued research and study, and not a lot of ridiculous expenditure, gross overregulation, and harbinging of death.

 

 

Shall we bring up the issue of the discovery of AIDS to illustrate that thousands of scientists were incorrect, and only handful were correct?

 

I can't think of any scientific theory I've researched that, from the outset, the majority of scientists agreed.

 

The nature of science, and scientists, is to disprove theories. The only way to prove a theory, is to attempt to disprove the result.

 

Again, I'm not swayed by the number of scientists signing the petition. Where were they before this hoopla? Are they the ones conducting the expidetions into the Artic and Antartic? Are they the ones monitoring the effect on life forms there? Tagging polar bears and seals?

 

Or are the majority of them sitting in labs and teaching in classrooms?

 

There's nothing wrong with either job, but I'll throw my hat in the ring with the guys putting months and years of their lives into hands on research, and not analyzing data after the fact.

Follow the money.

Shall we bring up the issue of the discovery of AIDS to illustrate that thousands of scientists were incorrect, and only handful were correct?

 

I can't think of any scientific theory I've researched that, from the outset, the majority of scientists agreed.

 

The nature of science, and scientists, is to disprove theories. The only way to prove a theory, is to attempt to disprove the result.

 

Again, I'm not swayed by the number of scientists signing the petition. Where were they before this hoopla? Are they the ones conducting the expidetions into the Artic and Antartic? Are they the ones monitoring the effect on life forms there? Tagging polar bears and seals?

 

Or are the majority of them sitting in labs and teaching in classrooms?

 

There's nothing wrong with either job, but I'll throw my hat in the ring with the guys putting months and years of their lives into hands on research, and not analyzing data after the fact.

 

RM, I love you, but if this is what you believe constitutes science, then I am not going to get anywhere debating the point, so will politely skip it.

RM, I love you, but if this is what you believe constitutes science, then I am not going to get anywhere debating the point, so will politely skip it.

 

 

C'mon...remember chemistry? Physics? You prove something by disproving the opposite. It's not ALL of scientific theory, but it is a good part of it.

Follow the money.

 

 

Which is exactly why I want to see the list of 31,000 and the organizations they represent.

C'mon...remember chemistry? Physics? You prove something by disproving the opposite. It's not ALL of scientific theory, but it is a good part of it.

 

Rockmom is correct. In order for something to be scientific, there must be ways to prove it wrong. If it has no tests for wrongness, it can still be an idea, but not be scientific.

Which is exactly why I want to see the list of 31,000 and the organizations they represent.

 

She has a good point here! :thumb:

Which is exactly why I want to see the list of 31,000 and the organizations they represent.

 

Agreed. I would love to see a listing of both sides and the funding sources they are involved with.

Rockmom is correct. In order for something to be scientific, there must be ways to prove it wrong. If it has no tests for wrongness, it can still be an idea, but not be scientific.

I see. So your saying the theory of Global Warming is scientific, because it can be proven to be wrong?

I see. So your saying the theory of Global Warming is scientific, because it can be proven to be wrong?

 

Yes. I am saying that. Global cooling is also a scientific theory. Both have data to support their claims. Obviously only one can be correct, though BOTH could be wrong.

Here's one of my issues with organizations that support global warming. No problem, no funding.

I'll be honest...I had picked my side long, LONG before the current hoopla. I have done my research and concluded that while there are definitely trends in the earth's cycle that one can expect, it's the effect on the acceleration of those trends by the human effect that concern me the most. The issue isn't that natural global warming would occur, but that humans should do more to impact the acceleartion less.

:thumb:

Follow the money.

Follow it right to oil drillers, auto manufacturers, and big industry.

Follow it right to oil drillers, auto manufacturers, and big industry.

Oh, so they're the ones claiming that "global warming" is "man made".

Which is exactly why I want to see the list of 31,000 and the organizations they represent.

You first.