Having been trained and employed as a scientist, my perception of science is that it is almost more about process than achieving some permanent end-state of knowledge. Disagreement and debate and a search for alternative explanations for available data are key to that process. When socio-political agendas stifle the debate and marginalize dissenters, the process becomes perverted and is fodder for the propanda machine. Let’s not forget the Nazis used "science" to justify and drive their social agenda. This is what I refer to as Kool-aid.
With respect to climate change (conveniently enough, no longer referred to as “global warming”):
- It isn’t new. (Is there a possibility what we are experiencing is within normal variation over a much longer time-frame?).
- It does not take “geologic” ages to be manifest.
- CO2 levels have varied cyclically over hundreds of thousands of years though reported industrial era levels are much higher than long term historical highs.
For those who believe our 100-120 year history of industrialization with attendant rise in CO2 levels is the cause of current climate change, this is definitely the 97% majority position. Visit the NASA site - they’ll tell you. I guess funding sources have never influenced agency views. Regardless, last I knew, science isn’t based on a popularity contest or poll numbers. There are a tiny minority of professional organizations and individual scientists who remain skeptical or at least take a more moderate position on the current “climate change gospel”. Suspect their agendas and motives just as much as those of the majority view-holders. Information at the links below might be of interest.
http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_lia.html
http://news.agu.org/press-release/monster-hurricanes-reached-u-s-northeast-during-prehistoric-periods-of-ocean-warming/
http://greenecon.net/should-we-be-concerned-over-elevated-co2-levels/energy_economics.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
With respect to climate change (conveniently enough, no longer referred to as “global warming”):
- It isn’t new. (Is there a possibility what we are experiencing is within normal variation over a much longer time-frame?).
- It does not take “geologic” ages to be manifest.
- CO2 levels have varied cyclically over hundreds of thousands of years though reported industrial era levels are much higher than long term historical highs.
For those who believe our 100-120 year history of industrialization with attendant rise in CO2 levels is the cause of current climate change, this is definitely the 97% majority position. Visit the NASA site - they’ll tell you. I guess funding sources have never influenced agency views. Regardless, last I knew, science isn’t based on a popularity contest or poll numbers. There are a tiny minority of professional organizations and individual scientists who remain skeptical or at least take a more moderate position on the current “climate change gospel”. Suspect their agendas and motives just as much as those of the majority view-holders. Information at the links below might be of interest.
http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_lia.html
http://news.agu.org/press-release/monster-hurricanes-reached-u-s-northeast-during-prehistoric-periods-of-ocean-warming/
http://greenecon.net/should-we-be-concerned-over-elevated-co2-levels/energy_economics.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming