Bad Science Almost Imposing Restrictive Laws

[Sciworks]

Here's an interesting article written by Physicist John Droz, Jr. in North Carolina. He writes about the struggle against a few Green activists on the Coastal Resources Commission (NC), they wanted to impose new rules and laws based on a single bad science sea level rise report.

http://www.masterresource.org/2012/06/fi...-carolina/

[Aractus]

fellow sceptic.

[Sciworks]

fellow sceptic.

We shouldn't be called skeptics or deniers, those are just labels religious groups use for heretics. It's like calling someone a religious skeptic, that may have worked in the 1800s but now most people think religious believers are just gullible.

If it wasn't for the amount of gullible people, the governments wouldn't be able to push AGW.

The climate scientists should be labelled Climate Priests or Bad Scientists :-)

[Minimalist]

http://www.newswise.com/articles/global-...ue-to-rise

Global Temperatures Continue to Rise

Nonetheless, it continues to get warmer.



And the ice caps continue to shrink.


( But the energy companies say " NO....It ISN'T." )

[Sciworks]

Global Temperatures Continue to Rise

Where does your info come from? It is widely known that there has been no rise in the last 16 years!

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

[pocaracas]

Global Temperatures Continue to Rise

Where does your info come from? It is widely known that there has been no rise in the last 16 years!

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

yeah... well, maybe that guy is "former" NASA for a reason.... Here's what the "current" NASA people have to say:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

[The Grand Nudger]

"Pushing" AGW isn't much of an issue. That human activities have a demonstrable effect on both local and global environmental circumstance and patterns is a demonstrable reality (the converse would be a free lunch scenario, we're not entertaining the notion of a free lunch, surely?). The consequence and severity of said effect is the area where you might find "pushing" to be a more adequate term.

[Mister Agenda]

That chart might support your point better if it didn't clearly show that the last 16 years averaged warmer than the previous 16 years. I'm not a fan of AGW, but I've been forced to accept that it has correctly identified a trend and most likely correctly identified a major cause of it. All scientific claims, especially of this import, should be treated skeptically. Skepticism doesn't mean 'don't accept as true, no matter what'. No one will be more pleased than me to find that GW isn't happening, but we've reached a point where it's the claims that it isn't real that have to be looked at skeptically. You can make a graph say almost anything if you get to pick the beginning and end points.

[pocaracas]

If you really want to do bad science, then you must graduate at this course:
http://books.google.pt/books?id=vXaksYDK...CDIQ6AEwAA

[Creed of Heresy]

Really? Roy Spencer? You're quoting Roy Spencer?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer...ent_Design

Not to poison the well or anything but the guy calls Intelligent Design a valid scientific theory.

Sorry, but my opinion of a man who thinks ID is a valid theory isn't really worthy any credibility as a scientist.

"Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college."

Who lost faith in evolution, huh? Well there's the problem right there.

Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer."

How does that old saying go? Oh, right! "The burden of proof is upon the person making the claim." God is claimed. There is no evidence for god. Evolution is claimed. There's fucktons of evidence for evolution. Global Warming is a myth, it is claimed. Evidence against global warming often turns out to be shallow skin-deep science that looks at only what it wants to without looking deeper into the issue to determine actual cause and effect. Evidence FOR global warming is often what happens when you look beyond the skin-deep data global warming deniers will bring up and start using ACTUAL science rather than just skin-deep science.

Roy Spencer is a fraud and a failure as a scientist.

---

Also, Dr. Droz is a physicist. What, exactly, does a physicist know about meteorology, exactly?? Physics and meteorology are two very distinct scholastic pursuits that are very, very unrelated.