Originally Posted By DlandDug The Natural Resources Stewardship Project? Who is that? Wikipedia: >>The Natural Resources Stewardship Project is a Canadian non-profit organization presenting itself as undertaking "A proactive grassroots campaign to counter the Kyoto Protocol and other greenhouse gas reduction schemes while promoting sensible climate change policy." It is headed by global warming skeptics Tom Harris, formerly Ottawa director of High Park Group, and Tim Ball, formerly Professor of Geography at the University of Winnipeg.<< <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Resources_Stewardship_Project" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N atural_Resources_Stewardship_Project</a> And from SourceWatch: >>The Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP), a Canadian non-profit group, including a number of leading climate change sceptics, was launched October 12, 2006.<< >>The NRSP maintains it has no direct connection with the Calgary-based group of climate change sceptics the "Friends of Science" (FoS), even though the FoS's most outspoken member, Tim Ball, is now the Chairman of the NRSP. With the exact same purpose and goals, and most of the same scientific allies and members as the Friends of Science, the NRSP is viewed by many as a reincarnation of the FoS, after the FoS was "outed" by The Globe and Mail newspaper in August 2006 as being partly funded by the oil and gas industry. The NRSP project is led by Executive Director, Tom Harris, who, in November 2002, while in the employ of the PR firm APCO Worldwide, organized a press conference titled "International Climate Experts Speak Out Against Climate Change Myths." The press conference was sponsored by Talisman Energy Inc. and Imperial Oil (ExxonMobil's Canadian subsidiary). Many of the same scientists and advisors now linked to the NRSP were present, including Tim Ball. NRSP describes its "first priority project" as being "Understanding Climate Change: A proactive grassroots campaign to counter the Kyoto Protocol and other greenhouse gas reduction schemes while promoting sensible climate change policy."<< <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Natural_Resources_Stewardship_Project" target="_blank">http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind ex.php?title=Natural_Resources_Stewardship_Project</a> Personally, I find it difficult to blandly accept statements made by groups who appear to be using subterfuge to impart their message.
Originally Posted By DlandDug My, my. I am surprised we didn't accidently shoot each other in the face in our effort to hit THAT sitting duck...
Originally Posted By friendofdd I accept that we are experiencing warming, although I do not understand how that contributes to the extreme cold some are having. I do not believe, as some headline writers have recently said, that the time for debate and discussion is over. How many times in the history of science would that have been a good thing? Scientists should continually question and test theories. How else do they find the mistakes and oversights in their knowledge? Accepting the warming is not the same as saying I think they know what they are talking about for the next several decades. These are the folks who said six months ago that SoCal would experience a mild, very wet "el nino" winter. So, if they can miss that, their model projections ay be just electronic wild guesses based on faulty data supplied by these folks. Does anybody know if sun cycles have been included in the mix? I have heard that it can be by far the major cause of the warming. (Makes a lot of sense to me, based on my studies of shade and direct sunlight.)
Originally Posted By JohnS1 Just a little something to think about - Science in many respects is like a religion, with some basic tenets which must be accepted or the whole foundation of the belief system crumbles. I am currently in the final revision stages of a book about a geologist who found himself in confrontation with the overwhelming majority of all other geologists who refused to accept his theory because it had the effect of weakening one of geology's most fundamental beliefs. My research into this individual and the persecution he suffered has been amzingly enlightening. He was alternately blackballed, criticized, mocked and ignored, while the majority of his profession continued to come up with increasingly complex and absurd alternatives to his rather simple theory, motivated by their fear that their fundamental beliefs were being challenged. Notice how anybody who disagrees with global warming is not simply regarded as a person with an opposing view, but as a loose cannon, as a bad, inherently destructive individual. Global warming is one of just a handful of scientific issues during the past 100 years or so in which the proponents are in such lock-step, and so protective of their beliefs that they refuse to welcome any alternative views. They also continue to display incredibly harsh levels of animosity towards scientists with opposing views, and are using the protective cover of "peer review" to block any of those scientists with opposing theories from participating in discussions at the international level. J Harlen Bretz is probably spinning in his grave over this one.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Pretty much none, I'd say." And you base this on what theory? That you just don't like how it sounds? "Science in many respects is like a religion, with some basic tenets which must be accepted or the whole foundation of the belief system crumbles." Well, no. This is categorically 180 degrees from the truth wrong.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 I've done a good deal of research over the past year and have seen what a group of scientists have done and will do to preserve the status quo of established theories within their particular fields of science. You are free to not interpret this as mimicking certain actions of those within a religion, but I see amazingly close similarities. Just my opinion, of course.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I've done a good deal of research over the past year and have seen what a group of scientists have done and will do to preserve the status quo" That's not how science works. If this individual you were talking about had a good theory, and was backed up by data, it'd be listened to. There was a reason it was not. Maybe he was right. But probably he wasn't. It's not religion. The very idea of religion is that ideas are sacrocanct and are not subject to change, regardless of evidence. In science, anything is subject to change, provided you have solid, peer-reviewed evidence.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>"Science in many respects is like a religion, with some basic tenets which must be accepted or the whole foundation of the belief system crumbles." Well, no. This is categorically 180 degrees from the truth wrong.<< And you base this on what theory? That you just don't like how it sounds?
Originally Posted By Mr X I believe there is plenty of politicing and subterfuge in the world of science. I would not say that, just because "science" says so, it must be correct because they are all so very ethical and above reproach. I'm sure that the "top" scientists are regarded as always right, and some lower guys might not speak up against what the top dogs say because they're afraid of ridicule. Just like in every other circle.
Originally Posted By hopemax > I've done a good deal of research over the past year and have seen what a group of scientists have done and will do to preserve the status quo of established theories within their particular fields of science. < But what exactly IS the status quo here? I would argue that "Human activity can not affect climate," is the status quo. Which would make the scientists who say that humans can effect it equivalent to your Bretz. Roger Revelle made his "CO2 problem" prediction in 1959 and now almost 50 years has passed. Bretz, it seems, only had to wait 40 years for vindication. The fact that there are now so many scientists saying the same thing, would be an indication that we've reached a critical mass in the scientific community, would it not?
Originally Posted By JohnS1 I think that the current "status quo" is that humans can indeed affect climate. Most scientists and the media and politicians support this notion. Which doesn't mean that it is true; just that a majority currently support this conjecture. And your point is well taken with regard to Roger Revelle. It may be that he was the lone voice of his time and that everyone is now embracing his theories and he has been vindicated. But it also may be that he was on track, but not quite right with his predictions, and continued work will flesh out or revise his theories. This is what I mean by science being sometimes like a religion. As long as scientists continue to question one another's work, then science is working the way it is supposed to. But once every scientist jumps on a band wagon and says - "Yes, this it the ultimate truth; there is nothing more on this topic to be researched or theorized," then science is behaving more like religion, in which many people say - the Bible is the final truth, every word is true, there is no equivocating or interpreting to be allowed, and that's the end of discussion.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Actually, the only parallel I see between Science and Religion is when certain unproved theories become, in essence, an article of faith. In the field of evolution, for example, there are several steps that have to be accepted as a matter of faith in order for the whole theory to hold. (The "missing link," for example. There are NO examples, nor a working model, for actual species change. But it is central to the theory.) I have no problem with scientists who choose to believe something unproven if it is a necessity for understanding a larger theory. I do have problems, though, when scientists and their adherents then scoff at the religious community for their faith. "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." These words could well apply to scientific theory, if only they weren't found in Hebrews 11:1 in that book so many dismiss as nothing more than fables and superstition, the Bible.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 < But once every scientist jumps on a band wagon and says - "Yes, this it the ultimate truth; there is nothing more on this topic to be researched or theorized,"> I don't really see the scientists who accept that humans are at least partly behind climate change doing this, though. I see them saying "we have enough data to draw the broad conclusion that human activity is responsible for some of the recent climate change. We don't know everything and we should continue to look deeper to discover how these processes work and what might be done about them." I do see some frustration on the part of some when faced with people using junk science, anomalies, etc. to cast doubt on the broad conclusion that can now be fairly said to be the scientific consensus, or trying to say it's not the consensus.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I've stated this recently before but it seems to bear repeating. What with the advances in technology and industry in the last 200 years, and all that humans all over the world have pumped into the atmosphere and oceans as a result, it is sheer folly, bordering on idiocy, to deny that this behavior has not had a negative impact on the climate. That it takes study after atudy to confirm this is maddening.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<What with the advances in technology and industry in the last 200 years, and all that humans all over the world have pumped into the atmosphere and oceans as a result, it is sheer folly, bordering on idiocy, to deny that this behavior has not had a negative impact on the climate.>> The changes, if any, in Minnesota climate has been entirely positive.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "The changes, if any, in Minnesota climate has been entirely positive. " Sez the guy from the state that elected Governor Jesse Ventura.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Sez the guy from the state that elected Governor Jesse Ventura.>> Sez the guy from the state that elected the Governator... ;-)
