@K Van Hoof:
Kathy: I always read your posts with great interest as they are informative and well stated. And although I disagree with the argument you put forward in this particular post …. that is hardly justification to “eviscerate” you. This propensity towards ad hominine attacks simply because someone has a different perspective has become all too common. It inhibits discussion and detracts from both the quality and the enjoyment of blogs such as this one. Therefore let me attempt to respond to your post by attempting to raise alternative arguments as a rebuttal so that the argument can be “joined”
First of all, I do not think characterizing those who challenge the global warming/climate change theory as “denialists.” in any way advances the argument for global warming/climate change theory. I suppose as a political tactic the attempt to infer that global warming sceptics are as illiterate as the holocaust deniers serves the global warming crowd’s purposes but does nothing to advance the validity of their theory.
Secondly, the attempt to compare the arguments of the global warming/climate change sceptic to the anti-evolution position, the literal interpretation of the Bible, and the smokers defence league is basically a straw man argument. The reason why we are sceptical of the global warming/climate change theory is because of the lack of solid intellectually sound scientific practices employed by the global warming theorists not because we deny the validity of science.
Let me elaborate. First, real science does not depend upon the consensus theory of truth … it has historically relied on the correspondence theory of truth. Since the Enlightenment science has developed theories and then scrupulously examined the empirical data to ensure the data and the theory correspond. If there is no correspondence … they abandon the theory and search for a new scientific explanation. In the global warming school … the empirical data does not correspond with their computer model predictions and so they move on to the “truth by consensus” argument. All the global warming crowd ever does …. is recite their ritual about how “97% of all the world’s leading climatologists believe in global warming” This classic application of “truth by consensus” theory has no validity in the world of hard science. (BTW … if you do the research you will find thousands of scientists who do not believe in the man-made global warming theory …. See the Oregon Petition and other Petitions. If you research the matter further you will find that the way they arrive at this overwhelming concensus is by polling the global warming supporters and proclaiming anyone who disagrees as being a non-expert and not entitled to vote in the poll even though their academic credentials are impeccable.)
Secondly, the reason many do not accept their “science” is because their scientific practices are at best questionable and at worst fraudulent. The hockey stick graph, which was the IPCC’s posterchild for global warming was irrefutably proven to be invalid. The climategate scandal proves conclusively that climate scientists were hiding the decline in global temperatures because at that time they had predicted catastrophic global warming. Additionally the emails exposed during the Climategate scandal establish that they were scheming as to ways to “eliminate” the Midieval Warming Period as this poses a serous threat to the theory. Further, the major climate research centres in both England and the U.S. have refused to provide their raw data to other scientists so that they can make an impartial objective assessment of how the data fits their theory. This refusal to provide the data runs contrary to established scientific practices for the last two centuries. Additionally, it is now irrefutably documented that there was a concerted effort over a period of years to move weather stations from their existing location into heat sinks simply to get the readings they desired to support their global warming theory. And finally, none of their predictions have proven true … and the validity of any scientific theory is its ability to predict the future.
Here is a typical example of their shoddy “scientific” research. A couple of “scientists” from our U of A. (on the taxpayers dime and with the support of the well known global warming believers called The Pembina Institute) flew over the N.W. T. looking for caribou herds. They noticed that the herd which was located north of the Saskatchewan boundary last year was no longer there. After flying around for some time they concluded that the caribou herd must have died … and that, of course, this was caused by global warming. They arrived home and with great fanfare announced to the world that Global Warming was killing off the caribou herd. Suzuki jumped on the stage to scare the sh$t out of kids by saying Santa Clause was going to lose his reindeer. Then a sceptic flew up to the N.W.T. and talked to the Natives in that area. They calmly explained that the Caribou had moved off into the bush in northern Saskatchewan as they had been doing periodically throughout history. The sceptic went into the bush in Northern Saskatchewan … and guess what … there was the herd of Caribou eating grass and reading The Night Before Christmas.
So that’s why we are suspect of their “science” …. because their science is suspect.