Thomas Kuhn revisited; for Matt especially (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, November 30, 2011, 23:33 (4742 days ago) @ David Turell

Where's all the evidence of corrupted spending that you would expect?

You keep ignoring the UN IPCC and the third world with its hand out. It is more than just Mann. (Have you given study to the hockey stick debacle). It is liberal governments that want more and more control through blaming C02., and by the way Limbaugh quotes Roy Spencer as his guiding scientist and advisor.

No ignorance, but as a lay person in the world of climate science, there is simply too much confusion for me to make up my mind firmly:

1. I definitely accept that a warming trend is happening. (Denying this... borders malfeasance.)
2. I am less confident that humans are the cause.
2a. Ice core data was the piece that really cinched it for me... I have heard of no accusations of forging of this data.
3. I am completely for doing something about it, as long as the solutions are of a market-based nature. (ie, no carbon tax, but I fully support new technologies.)

I feel that, having reviewed pieces (by far not all) literature, that the only argument that holds any weight against climate change is the idea of stations recording near heat islands. However, with the 70 stations that Watts and his followers have found that were acceptable--the data from those stations still tracks to the same trend as the aggregate.

As for the money and the allegations of third-world moneybegging...

I don't buy it. I'm expected to believe, that a consensus of first-world scientists are working in conjunction with third-world countries to funnel them money? Really?

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

You are arguing with me from very superficial study of the issue. I have a paper from many years ago at the Raleigh Tavern Philosophical Society, on line, reviewing Pat Michaels' objections., "Satanic Gases". A LoneStar college discussion group (mainly professors) to which I belonged when in Tomball.

Climate science isn't my area. I've paid attention to Watts since you posted his link some years ago, but you do know that his books are published by the same PR company that backs big tobacco? That might not seem pertinent, but it informs me that Watts might himself be in the lucrative business of selling books--of which it can be easy to do when controversial subjects are broached.

Sun spots have been debunked. The only thing left standing is us... in terms of real explanations.

Have you heard of the theory of infinite dispersal? You might have... you were in high school when the theory would have been common. It was debunked by acid rain, and the demonstration that sulfuric compounds released by factories caused it.

And if we look at the weight of money, oil companies stand to lose far more by alternate energy sources than third world countries stand to gain. (Which third world countries... no one has ever bothered to answer me that question.)

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"