Comments on: How I Became a Skeptic about Global Warming Forecasts

By: Randy

Randy — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 02:12:06 +0000

JW Strain said:
“Sea ice however is the issue of discussion for melting at Antarctica and the issue is that while the bulk of the ice field tends to melt each summer and refreeze two months later, in the last ten years the melt has become more extensive and the freezing less extensive.”

I’ve lived for over fifty years and have seen more change over that period than I can describe. Only fools expect things to stay the same forever. Anyone over forty can attest to change. The world will never again be the way it was when you were ten. (Assuming you are even older than twenty)

Farmland in Greenland? It existed in a time way before humans could be accused of causing it. And polar bears existed as a species both before and after that time. BFD!

By: Marv

Marv — Tue, 20 May 2008 19:20:39 +0000

“disgruntled opinions and random events in history” are the stuff of the Global Warming hoaxers.

Your mistake, or deception, is in equating data with science, and excluding ‘debate’ as unscientific. This is a standard trick of those who use science as a socio-political weapon rather than as a means of discovering knowledge, which is what it’s supposed to be.

“Science tests and evaluates, it does not debate.” - “evaluates”???? That is a statement of pure ignorance. Who makes the evaluation? “Science” doesnt DO anything, it’s what people do. And there are right and wrong ways to do it.

The Global Warming hoax is a perfect demonstration of how NOT to conduct scientific inquiry. Its advocates have made politically motivated conclusions based on incomplete data and “random events in history which have been selected to support a preconceived conclusion.”

You are the pot calling the kettle black.

By: J W Strain

J W Strain — Tue, 13 May 2008 00:12:15 +0000

It is fascinating to know that your stance is based entirely on disgruntled opinions and random events in history which have been selected to support a preconceived conclusion. It is also remarkable to note the deliberate alteration of data your site offers. For example, it has never been suggested that all scientists agree on global warming, only that there is a growing and overwhelming consensus. Your site however, maintains that this is an ongoing claim from “every” source on global warming. Also, the information regarding ice at Antarctica is misrepresented, likely because you are not competent to review it and cannot find a scientist available for your payroll. Icebergs do not come from sea ice, only fresh water glaciers. The data you have was collected referring to glaciers, not sea ice as you claim. Sea ice however is the issue of discussion for melting at Antarctica and the issue is that while the bulk of the ice field tends to melt each summer and refreeze two months later, in the last ten years the melt has become more extensive and the freezing less extensive.
Science tests and evaluates, it does not debate. Debates have to do with individual ability to argue, facts are not generally addressed. Enjoy your debate, science remains over your head.