the hypothesis is backed up by no experimental data, right now, it is nothing more than just that: a hypothesis.
do the conservatives on here who keep copying and pasting his speech word for word (about ocean salinity causing the warming) actually know this, or have they just been in a such a rush to find some scientist who supports their cause that they don't care much whether or not the claim actually has any scientific credibility?
2007-10-16 12:58:39 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
to the first poster: skeptics do get grant money -- from exxon mobile
2007-10-16 13:03:21 · update #1
And I take it that you have some evidence that the large percentage of climatologists (far larger than the 25 on the IPCC) who doubt the veracity of anthropogenic global warming are all on the Exxon payroll.
2007-10-16 13:32:10 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The thing that needs to be understood about people on both sides of politics is that it is often the case that they have their minds already made up and they just want some kind of evidence that what they say is true.
In this case the denialists have already decided that global warming isn't happening, caused by us, whatever and so they are just looking for any shred of evidence which can be twisted to show that. As far as the global warming denialists are concerned any claim which shows global warming to be not happening or caused by us or whatever has scientific credibility and anything showing global warming to be happening and caused by us has no scientific credibility. They base their decisions on which evidence is strong not on how strong the evidence is but on whether it fits their preconceived notion of the truth.
It's not a good way to make policy.
Oh and please don't call those who deny global warming skeptics, most of them are not (the ones that actually deserved the term are no longer denialists because they have come to realise that the evidence is clear on the matter).
2007-10-16 13:07:11 · answer #2 · answered by bestonnet_00 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I would rather see this topic out of the political sphere until an actual scientific consensus has been established. So far I've seen no supportable evidence on the Global Warming Alarmist side that proves anything. In fact many of the sources I've seen quoted are the same that were raising the alarm 30 years ago about a coming ice age.
2007-10-16 13:09:05 · answer #3 · answered by drgnrdr451 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
are you a scientist in need of more grant money?
gray is 100% correct. So are many other scientists.
Does Copernicus ring a bell?
The majority consensus in science is often wrong. FACT!
2007-10-16 13:01:53 · answer #4 · answered by charbatch 3 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Its even worse than that!
Check out logicalscience.com's complete and total deconstruction of Gray and his theories.
For starters, his famous anti-AGW theory apparantly violates the first law of thermodynamics, and he has made multiple biffs that show that he is really, really badly out of date in his scientific understanding!
2007-10-16 13:05:20 · answer #5 · answered by peacedevi 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋