An inconvenient truth.... or lie?

Unless the journalists also happen to be scientists, why should we trust their knowledge on the subject over that of knowledgable experts? And why does the possible fraud of a small number of scientists necessarily mean that the entire scientific community is fraudulent?Do you really expect the media tabloids to be objective on this issue?Don't you find it a little odd that out of over a thousand e-mails and documents, only a few have been presented as evidence of fraud? And usually out of context.And as a sidenote: *Sarcasm time*
Surely, if the Bible was referring to anthropogenic global warming it would have simply said so:

quote:

---

8 The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and the sun was given power to scorch people with fire, because people had filled the atmosphere with CO2 and thus defiled God's creation. 9 They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God, but they refused to repent and glorify him and pursue alternative fuel strategies.

---

*End of sarcasm*-Meldinoor

Hi slevesque, Taz can be a jerk at times. Don't feed his trollish and spiteful behaviour by responding to it. Now granted, I'm not an expert in this field at all. But I think what you're saying is that we must take water vapour into account in order to conclude whether GW is anthropogenic or not? According to wikipedia:

quote:

---

Water vapor accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66% for water vapor alone, and between 66% and 85% when factoring in clouds

---

This means that other gases (like CO2 or methane) account for at least 15% of the greenhouse effect. That's enough to cause quite a bit of change should these gases start building up in the atmosphere. Furthermore, warm air can hold more water vapour. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see what might happen to water vapour concentration when the atmosphere heats up.I agree with you in that modeling and simulating climate change is a very complex and difficult task (weather is complex, that's why meteorologists are unable to make accurate predictions more than a few days ahead). I don't think there's anyone who can predict with certainty how much climate change to expect, and how much of a role we'll play in causing it, but it is a fact that global temperatures are rising and that the levels of carbon dioxide and other anthropogenic greenhouse gases are on the rise. This should be a cause for concern, and an indication that we are not blameless as temperatures start climbing.Respectfully,-Meldinoor

Even if Jones has acted fraudulently, or hidden certain data for who knows what purposes, that doesn't mean that every climatologist in the world whose research indicates anthropogenic GW is lying. All it shows that there are rotten apples in every basket.I have read the e-mails, however, unlike you, I'm not going to judge these e-mails based on my personal bias and limited knowledge of the context. And I don't have to. The e-mails are being investigated by IPCC, and I suspect we will know soon how much, if any, fraud is behind them.No point in reaching conclusions prematurely, eh? Let's wait until the facts roll in.Respectfully,-Meldinoor

I have also noticed how Christians in general, and especially Creationists tend to be the most skeptical (read pseudo-skeptical) of Global Warming. Anyone know why this is?Respectfully,-Meldinoor

*cough* Really?? Different nations cooperating to reduce emissions is a step toward a New World Order??? It doesn't restrict our untapped natural resources such as wind, solar, nuclear, natural gas etc. Nuclear plants have very little emissions, and if it weren't for their scariness I'm sure we'd be getting much more of our energy from them.How exactly is it going to enrich 3rd world nations, besides the fact that they won't be ending up under water? Won't we instead be doing well to be off of "Muslim" and "communist" oil?I mean, we're empowering the Muslim bloc right now by buying their oil. Why the heck does pursuing cheaper energy solutions on our own soil mean empowering them?The problems you're talking about seem very much to be the problems we are in now, not the ones we'd be in if we took GW seriously. Getting rid of our dependence on oil will not only promote cleaner energy, but REMOVE our dependence on other nations.Respectfully,-Meldinoor

If conservatives decide to rely on media and conservative spin, rather than data and fact they are more gullible than I thought.

My point was that you should not rely on popular media AT ALL for your science. Instead of just reading blogs and listening to talk show hosts or news reporters, read the source material yourself. Read the controversial e-mails in full, read papers on Global Warming. Look at the data, is it consistent, does it make sense?I, personally, do not prefer any newsnetwork over any other, and I dislike spin whether it is liberal or conservative.Respectfully,-Meldinoor