This would be expected. The real trick is figuring out whether we are being scammed by opportunists and misguided do-gooders, or if are we denying the reality.

If global warming is real, then we have to figure out did we really cause it? We don't want to waste valuable economic resources if it's a natural cycle and beyond our control. Those resources could be put to good use dealing with the effects of warming.

 

Finally, some sensibility in the climate debate. You are asking the right questions, but I have more for you. If global warming is real, but within normal historic ranges, are we doing anything to speed it up? If it is within historic temperature ranges, does that mean that it is ok? There have been plenty of ice ages in the past, but that doesn’t mean it is a good thing for us if it happens again. If the climate is headed in a direction that will severely impact life on this planet, does it matter if we are a major cause of the change or only a minor? In that case let’s spend or resources on determining if we can stop it rather than determine what caused it.

I see it like an approaching asteroid. Determine if it will hit us, determine how it will affect life, determine where it came from (time permitting), and then determine if we can do anything to stop it.

 

I'll raise the BS flag on this one. This article makes much of the opinions of a psychologist and a philosopher. OK, so what? Let's stipulate that what they say is true. Does an aberrant psychological profile invalidate a scientific conclusion? Conversely, does a "normal" psychological profile mean your argument is valid, regardless of its technical merits? This smells like an ad hominem attack dressed up as a scientific conclusion.

What if I dug up some crazy study that showed that warmists, when shown pictures of Al Gore, secreted the same hormone as lemmings when they were headed for the cliff? You'd rightly call me out as off target.

The OP was about the email scandal at CRU. Since that post was written the Australian senate has torpedoed a proposed cap and trade scheme that their PM had hoped to take to Copenhagen. Today, Mr Gore announced that he was bailing on the Copenhagen conference. I'll predict here that the president has something come up and can't go at the last minute.

What if the warmists are exactly right? Don't you think the secrecy and corruption exposed by the emails are hurting the cause?

WW

 

"Carbon" tax ? Life, 'as we know it' , is carbon based.
Surely we can sell that idea!

 

Its snowing here in Houston. Im buying a Hummer

 

This is what I thought the scientific community was doing. Now it has been proven they were not and can not be trusted. So once they are proven to be untrustworthy, where do you go. My opinion, ignore them and let god figure it out.

 

I never said anything about 2/3 of ALL scientists. I saw this statistic a while ago and no longer have the source as I recycled it. It was in a scientific journal that my wife had. Believe it or don't believe it, I'm not going to get into a global warming argument on an internet message board. Unlike Al Gore, for me there's no money in it so why spend the time.

 

that would make two thirds.

 

And that is the biggest problem with this. Now people just will not trust science anymore. Scientists are not an organized bunch of people with a common agenda. Just because these idiot messed up does not mean all science is discredited. Instead of ignoring data and not trusting science, lets be skeptical of new data and look for evidence to support or disprove conclusions. Only when we have evidence can we label something as true or false. In this case, the evidence has been tampered with, but it does not mean that all of global warming or all science is false. Lets look at it rationally. Without science and reason our society will fall apart.

 

No really? You are a real math whiz aren't ya?

You are asserting that I said 2/3 of ALL SCIENTISTS ON THIS PLANET EARTH said this wasn't the case. All I am saying is that I read for every one ALARMIST out there, two others say it is not true. This never was a statement of the beliefs of 2/3 of every single scientist on the planet Earth.