And no emotional responses, whatever they might be, actually affect scientific *reality*, except for realities intimately tied to human emotional responses in individual cases (eg stress affecting blood pressure, or the like)
Yes... some scientist actually pocket from this crap. Trevor once claim he was a climate scientist for 32 yrs. Now in the 70's it was speculated we had in fact entered global cooling some time ago. In the 90's this was proven. AGW wasn't taught in university untill the mid 00's. GW goes completely against all natural sources including dome C. The only sources that back GW are faulty man made technology. The scientific community today is about 50/50 on GC or GW. GW isonly that popular because it was introduced to the educational system in the 00's. It stumps me that Trevor has claimed all sorts of things that correlate with AGW but goes against Dome C. It stumps me because he said 32 yrs not 10yrs.
I think that the majority of people now a days only think with their wallet! If it were fashionable to have one instead of more economical I think you would probably sell more. People who fight for causes are not always intelligent . If the crusaders spent more time getting to know what they were fighting for instead of finding another way to get out of work and actually researched what they were fighting for then it might make a difference. Sometimes things are worth fighting for and sometimes it's just not worth your time!
Reality is Reality.
How it perceived depends on the person, of course.
You are talking of theory , so the out come can be what you choose
What we have in the question you linked to is one person insulting and condemning another for having done nothing more than expressing his opinions.
It seems some people don’t want to, or aren’t able to, engage in a debate on the subject of climate change and so ridicule what they perceive to be the opposition.
In the hierarchal structure of argumental techniques this is the worst and lowest form of argument there is, it’s used as a last resort by people who have nothing else at their disposal. It’s a common technique amongst skeptics.
Of course, when it comes to climate change, or any scientific issue, then the only thing that really matters is the science itself. Emotions, opinions, feelings etc have no place in science. That’s not to say that scientists (or others) can’t express how they feel outside the scientific sphere, which is precisely what Dr Richardson was doing.
Read a scientific paper – it’s factual, cold, hard, based on evidence, completely lacking in emotion. Read something from the skeptics, it’s full of emotion, opinions, beliefs but completely lacking in science and evidence. The world doesn’t function on opinions and beliefs, it follows the laws of nature and science.
- - - - - - - - - -
EDIT: TO AMY
Sorry ‘Amy’ but you’re talking complete and utter nonsense.
<< Trevor once claim he was a climate scientist for 32 yrs>>
31 years but I’ll let you off, simple mistake.
<
Wrong.
It was correctly pointed out that if the dimming trend at that time continued we could experience some degree of cooling in the future. The dimming was caused by our emissions of sulphates and BPM, action was taken and potential cooling was averted.
<
Wrong again.
By the 90’s it was already history.
<
Wrong yet again.
I did geography and climatology at degree level in the 1980’s. By the early 90’s climatology was a standalone subject and I did a further degree specifically in climatology and followed this up with other degrees in related subjects. Many climate scientists around today have degrees that predate the “mid 00’s” by many years.
Perhaps you should read something of the history of climatology:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/climo...
<< GW goes completely against all natural sources including dome C. >>
Guess what, wrong again.
Dome C data extend back over the last eight glacial maxima, it provides irrefutable evidence that the climate is changing way beyond the parameters of any natural variation or influence.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v45...
<
You guessed it, wrong again.
GW is consequent to the laws of quantum mechanics. Are you saying that the most powerful and successful of all the invariable and universal laws of nature has been created by our technology?
<< The scientific community today is about 50/50 on GC or GW>>
And once again you’re wrong.
There isn’t one single scientific organisation on the planet that opposes the theory of manmade global warming. Not one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_...
<
Still maintaining that 100% record of being wrong.
I still have my geography textbooks from the 70’s and they talk about global warming. You also seem to forget that the IPCC was formed in 1988 as a global initiative to deal with climate change.
Here’s an educational film from 1958 warning of the dangers of global warming:
Excerpt (1 min):
