I have reversed the order of your primary points i.e. I will address the procedural points before returning to the original point. If you object, let me know.
Maybe, but you appear to be denying there is/was hysteria and continually asking questions in response to questions and requests for the point of your questions.
At the risk of contradicting my signature, appearances can be deceiving. I believe there is a substantial amount of hysteria on this (and other) topics. Anyone who suggest that hysteria is not potentially applicable to people or opinions is lacking the most basic awareness of human thoughts and emotions. Have you ever looked at this thread title and pondered whether it could apply to both sides of the discussion? Hysteria is an equal opportunity emotional response.
The conversational thread about hysteria from my perspective. If I have left out anything pertinent, let me know.
I actually did get caught up in the hysteria a bit back in the 1990's, but two main things shone through after Al Gore started pumping the issue. The first was the controvosy over the actual data. There was a lot of selective locations and as I recall "adjustments" to the actual temperature readings. It seemed locations that didn't rise in conformoty with their notion were disregarded. The other was the financial issue, geared toward a new form of tax revenue and agencies setup to facilitate this.
Multiple points but trying to deal with the first one:
Which apparent controversy do you refer to?
It was a long time ago, but a google search found this Time magazine article which talks about some of it.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1946935,00.html
The release of emails from the Climate Research Unit at the British University of East Anglia. Again, appears simple enough given the availability of the information so I asked about that.
And what was the take away point for you about that "controversy"? i.e. what was the specific evidence from that "controversy" that adjusted your views.
Pretty much as I said before... if you come from a psychological/behavioural perspective, the lack of real consensus, hard evidence and the politicking, ie a fear of not being believed without question coupled with the intent to suppress anything that might give critics something to argue with, leaves the integrity of the reporting wide open to 'reasonable doubt' .
I'm not going to simply believe you without question or evidence, so I asked.
1. Lack of real consensus. What lack of consensus are you referring to? Can you be specific by citing the relevant email(s) from that controversy.
2. The politicking and intent to suppress. Can you be specific as to what was being suppressed by citing the relevant email(s) from that controversy.
Specifics please, not general impressions or vague allusions.
As I said it's not so much about any one specific fact... except the significant fact that their behaviour isn't typical of reputable researchers who have nothing to fear from being totally open and honest with their data for discussion about the meaning of it and any conclusions avaiable.
So you have no specific text, emails, or examples to discuss. Why bother bringing it up then? Do you apply the same vague standard to the other side of the debate? If not, then you are simply being dishonest.
Not dishonest... simply cautious.
The basic tenant of law is the same as in science. Presumed innocent until proven guilty, or to rephrase for science, a theory is just a theory until it can be proved and replicated.*
Sure there has been some global warming (and cooling) during human civilisation, but where the hysteria comes in is to paint that as some cataclysmic man made disaster.
I found it interesting that the
link you posted in reference to this incident states the following:
Time Magazine said:
The truth is that the e-mails, while unseemly, do little to change the overwhelming scientific consensus on the reality of man-made climate change. But they do hand a powerful political card to skeptics at the start of perhaps the most important environmental summit in history.
If I was to demonstrate malfaesence, bad behaviour, politicking, etc on behalf of those who reject the scientific consensus about climate change, would that mean that you would adjust your views? Did you evaluate your position about the scientific research on politics, ideology, economics, personalities, perceptions, etc.?
Asking questions is fine, but not to engage in dialogue about the response and just ask more questions is fruitless and leads to frustration and confrontation about one's intention or ability to comprehend and grasp what is presented.
It may come as no surprise to you that I believe that I have engaged in dialogue about your responses. But feel free to demonstrate where you believe that I have not and we can take up those points.
Continuous questions without any dialogue is also indicative of someone who is evasive, or can never be satisfied and keeps demanding 'impossible' (from their perspective) proof.
I am very easily satisfied. If you make a claim that does not correlate with my understanding on this topic, I will ask you for the specific information that informed your opinion or belief. Another option is not assert opinions as fact. It's isn't that hard or impossible
So, to avoid being ignored in future, please explain the point to your incessant questions? Is it that you agree with the Global Warming notion and deny there is hysteria?
Ignore me or not as you wish but it will not stop me from asking for evidence relating to claims made on this topic. If you choose to ignore them then perhaps others should draw the same inference that you invited about climate scientists i.e. reasonable doubt? That would not be a valid conclusion to draw though would it? It may be instructive of how climate scientists have felt about or an example of how people generally react when confronted with what they perceive as difficult?
And I agree with you, people should be able to rationally discuss these issues in an open, honest, and supportable manner
And a thank you for taking the time to ask me for my opinion, I appreciate it. My position on global warming is that I believe I am not qualified, capable, nor in a position to coherently assess the most recent and validated data related to the topic. That doesn't stop me from trying to understand as best I can and read as much as I am able but without the provision of a viable alternative by a significant and substantial section of climate scientists, or the identification of systemic fraud, I defer to the overwhelming majority of climate scientists i.e. a scientific consensus of climate scientists who I believe are in the best position to assess and formulate coherent ideas.
From that position though, I have very little to offer other than looking around and noting the hysteria.
(Snip/Reverse)
The hysteria refers to the political introduction of now repealed Qld Sustainability Reports related to land sales and the introduction of the carbon tax etc to 'fight climate change'. See this thread from the start.
As earlier in my response, did politics, ideology, economics, personalities, perception, or other non scienctific aspects changed your views on the climate science?