[eweissenbach]

Originally Posted by JP

Oh, you mean left wing and government funded Stanford. I know them.

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by eweissenbach

...I prefer my sources un affiliated such as Stanford University.

Heheh...that's a good one. Almost spit out my coffee.

[eweissenbach]

Persons who scoff at research from sources such as Stanford, but believe everything they hear or read from obviously biased sources would make me laugh if it weren't so sad.

[Don H]

Something that many haven't thought of is that the very beginnings of climate change began with the beginning of the industrial revolution. Specifically from the time that industry switched from water power to coal fired steam power. Added to that was the advent of the automobile and by then the ball was rolling. Fire based power generation and locomotion (of any kind) had never occurred before throughout the entire history of the planet. This is an event that only began less than 200 years ago. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that this event which continues to grow at an exponential rate has effected this planet and it's atmosphere. Anyone who denies that possibility is merely sticking their head in the sand.

[JP]

From what I have seen and read, "research" is frequently biased toward an outcome the funding source desires.

[eweissenbach]

Originally Posted by JP

From what I have seen and read, "research" is frequently biased toward an outcome the funding source desires.

We agree 100% on this statement. The problem is what a given person considers bias. Stanford University for example, is a privately funded research institute and relies on neither the state nor federal government for funding.

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by eweissenbach

Persons who scoff at research from sources such as Stanford, but believe everything they hear or read from obviously biased sources would make me laugh if it weren't so sad.

I for one said nothing about believing everything I read from any source. But to think that Stanford has no bias is laughable and/or sad also.

[blueash]

There is a difference between science and belief or if you prefer science and faith. Science involves continuous study and testing. It involves both description and discovery It is testable. Belief is not testable. You believe in God, or you don't. There is not any experimental evidence involved. You believe your wife loves you. That is based certainly on observation and some testing, but you also understand that if a situation changed, so could her love. Scientific truths do not change, they just have not been fully elucidated.

Many scoff at science when they hear of a study that seems to refute a previous study. However that is a misunderstanding of how science works. Newton offered brilliant observations of physics. But later testing and observation showed that his formulations and equations were wrong in some situations. We don't throw out Newtonian physics, instead there have been further adjustments and theories to improve on his foundation. Thank you Einstein, Bohr et al.

A previous poster mentioned Semmelweis and the failure of medicine to accept his observation immediately. This is a favorite anti-science tact to discredit scientists as it proves the majority is wrong. Well it doesn't. He presented an observation. He had no theory to explain his observation. That waited until Pasteur and the germ theory of disease. A mechanism was now understood to explain sepsis. And with this new information the practice of medicine changed. This is an example not of the resistance of science to change, but of the requirement for additional research and a theoretical basis for altering practice. It should be testable and verifiable.

Climate science is not weather forecasting. Weather is not climate. Whether it is cold or hot this week in London is not evidence for climate change. Those who say, oh it is cold this winter fail to discriminate between weather and climate. Climate science has produced a number of predictions over a period longer than the time between Semelweis's book and Pasteur. Those predictions are based on a theory of the impact of the accumulation of man made alterations in our environment on climate. They have been very accurate so far.

Yes the climate has always changed. No one has said otherwise. This issue is whether humans are having an impact that is significant and threatens the stability of nations and people. One of the salient parts of the theory is that the longer we wait to change our practices, the more serious those consequences will be.

Taking lead out of the fuel in my car made no difference to the amount of lead poisoning in children. But taking the lead out of everyone's car, and out of the paint has nearly eliminated it in America. When I trained a blood level of under 30 was normal. Now just 35 years later, any level over 5 is considered toxicity. Little changes by everyone can have a huge impact on children, on sea level, on global climate.

[eweissenbach]

Originally Posted by Polar Bear

I for one said nothing about believing everything I read from any source. But to think that Stanford has no bias is laughable and/or sad also.

We will have to agree to disagree.

[TexaninVA]

Originally Posted by eweissenbach

Persons who scoff at research from sources such as Stanford, but believe everything they hear or read from obviously biased sources would make me laugh if it weren't so sad.

I marvel at those who are so clearly gifted and enlightened ... along with their sense of compassion for the unwashed masses who are not

[CFrance]

Originally Posted by TexaninVA

I marvel at those who are so clearly gifted and enlightened ... along with their sense of compassion for the unwashed masses who are not

wow.