Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe

[FunkMasterB]

According to the article, Dr. Ball is former University of Winnipeg climatology professor. And to answer your other question, it doesn't take much to convince me he's more of an expert in this than Mr. Gore.

Sure, when it's just Ball versus Gore, you've got to go with Ball. When it's Ball vs. all the sources I mentioned above, Ball looks like an outlier. And I'm sure one could come up with a very lengthy list of climatology professors who agree with Gore and disagree with Ball.

[Stephanie]

The world isn't run rationally.

Yep. Plus, it takes big $$$$, ideas and risks for people to want to do something about anything.

[alicia-w]

i'm looking forward to seeing the movie. I watched AL Gore on Larry King last night and enjoyed every minute of it.

[cognosco]

Science works by peer review.

Science is a lot more than peer review; but that's how a lot of it takes place. Fortunately neither science, nor peer review is infallible. The truth is the truth whether science or peer review suggests otherwise or not. The consensus, while appreciable, is by no means unanimous--even among "scientists".

A2K

This is true, but what I tend to follow as a non-experimenting bystander is the consensus of informed opinion. When I see 100 articles supported generally by the scientific community, and a half dozen supported by industry and government pressure, I am apt to follow the scientific consensus. Individuals can be bribed, pressured, politically motivated otherwise, however science has no true agenda and unless I am actively involved in a scientific field I would consider it wrongheaded to follow the outlier because it better fits my worldview. No accusation here of you, just a general thing I see going together a lot.

If the scientific consensus or strong evidence came out and caused serious discussion about mankind's influence over the climate I wouldn't find myself unwilling to change the basis of my understanding on this subject. I'd rather humans weren't interfering with the earth's feedback loops.

[jasons2k]

Thanks all for the comments and discussion from both sides of the issue. I think good points on both sides.

[Audrey2Katrina]

This is true, but what I tend to follow as a non-experimenting bystander is the consensus of informed opinion. When I see 100 articles supported generally by the scientific community, and a half dozen supported by industry and government pressure, I am apt to follow the scientific consensus. Individuals can be bribed, pressured, politically motivated otherwise, however science has no true agenda and unless I am actively involved in a scientific field I would consider it wrongheaded to follow the outlier because it better fits my worldview. No accusation here of you, just a general thing I see going together a lot.

If the scientific consensus or strong evidence came out and caused serious discussion about mankind's influence over the climate I wouldn't find myself unwilling to change the basis of my understanding on this subject. I'd rather humans weren't interfering with the earth's feedback loops.

I've been over this issue about "agendas" time and time again, and the notion that all the industry bucks are behind any studies that dispute the global warming alarmists, and all the "sincerely scientific" evidence champions the GW sympathizers is just as bogus as some of the other claims made in here. Suffice it to say there are large grants (translation $$$) being tossed around to justify the alarmists just like there are to debunk it.

I will say this one last time, because I don't care for another 100 plus post debate over an issue on which I aree with many points--but not all. There ARE good and sincere, and HIGHLY qualified climatologists, and paleoclimatologists who do NOT buy into all the AGW hype... just as there are large numbers who do... and as far as throwing the "numbers" around, I remind all that the size of the congregation in no way constitutes the validity of its doctrines. There are SCIENTISTS who are on both sides of this issue, and the boogey-man of industry/gov't money corrupting anyone who disagrees with the alarmists is just plain false.

A2K

[cognosco]

Yes, I can definetely see your point.