Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on August 06, 2006 11:06 PM
No. It's bad science all around. There is global warming, but the famous hockeystick graph is highly questionable. That does not mean that anthrogenic (mankind-caused) global warming is or isn't real, but the questionable data, plus "throw everything in the pot" arguments like using the 2005 hurricane season as a data point (many scientific groups, including NOAA, don't think the recent hurricanes and global warming are tied together), makes the statement "global warming is proven" utterly wrong.
Of course, to then say that because it isn't proven implies it doesn't exist is equally stupid. Bad science, bad logic. The problem is complex and likely due to many many factors. People are seeing any correlation and jumping to causation. The extremes -- that there is no warming or that humans are responsible for all global warming -- are both pretty much unsupportable given current data.
JunkScience.com and JerryPournelle.com both have fairly good skeptic information. Neither disputes global warming and both raise serious unanswered questions with the current models (in Junk Science's case it's with the mathematics, in JP's case, it's with historical records).
There is also the slightly more activisty <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/" title="realclimate.org">http://www.realclimate.org/</a realclimate.org> They are less objective in my opinion, but still bring up good points.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:Point of video?
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 06, 2006 11:06 PMOf course, to then say that because it isn't proven implies it doesn't exist is equally stupid. Bad science, bad logic. The problem is complex and likely due to many many factors. People are seeing any correlation and jumping to causation. The extremes -- that there is no warming or that humans are responsible for all global warming -- are both pretty much unsupportable given current data.
JunkScience.com and JerryPournelle.com both have fairly good skeptic information. Neither disputes global warming and both raise serious unanswered questions with the current models (in Junk Science's case it's with the mathematics, in JP's case, it's with historical records).
There is also the slightly more activisty <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/" title="realclimate.org">http://www.realclimate.org/</a realclimate.org> They are less objective in my opinion, but still bring up good points.
#