The fact that many scientists have bought into it is not crucial at all. MANY DO NOT. What people should do is think for themselves and look at the FACTS. There is a sheep mentality among scientists unfortunately. It is human nature.

And they should ask questions. For example. Why is Antarctica cooling?
Why is the planet Mars warming? (and other planets in our solar system), why are the glaciars in New Zeeland and Norway GROWING? And surprisingly many other places. Even some of the glaciars “Dr” Gore is using in his film is actually growing. Check it out yourselves..

And start to THINK how come the media does not report REAL NEWS like the fact that THOUSANDS of people die from starvation and malnutrition EVERY DAY.. they seem obsessed (at least in Europe where most people have lost touch with nature and its forces) about Global “warming” and not much interested in much else. I have not read anything in the European press about this switch from 1998 to 1934 for example. The media seems like a propagandamachine for a certain political movement. Insane.

I hope there are enough sensible people in the US to put this is perspective.

regards from Norway

Great point about the fact that no single scientific study stands on its own, but i think it’s often not the researchers that blow things out of proportion, it’s the media. This is exactly what happened with Global Cooling in the 70s, it was a scientific theory not yet explored, and the media ran with it before any actual studies and research were done.

The irony here is that it is in fact the Global Warming skeptics who take one little factoid here or there and try to blow it out of proportion. Those who accept the likelihood of Global Warming have thousands of studies to back them up, not one or two.

Great point - and of course the media doesn’t help because they leap on any little factoid and blow it all out of proportion -

a great example of this is, again, the fact that so many people, even here, keep saying that in the 70s there were all these peer reviewed scientific studies predicting global cooling - simply not true
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

And yes, I’m citing internet sources, but if these sources are wrong, if there were scads of peer reviewed studies and scientific organizations backing the theory of Global Cooling I’d love to see some links and evidences.

My main point here is that until now, nobody checked up on the NASA study, it was simply accepted as a fact. NASA deserves some credit for having fixed the data, but the mistake should have been caught much earlier. As in, before the government decided to put out a bunch of press releases about it.

My criticism is that this happens all too often when climate change is the topic. Not that it doesn’t happen in other fields, but they usually don’t result in quite as extreme of a reaction on any side.

Here’s your jester’s hat. Make me laugh!

Oh.. sorry… I’m not supposed to be intelligent or have an opinion, because I’m a comedian.

And please always remember, as my people have noted to many a schoolchild - 7 ate 9. JUST like the Jews eat the Christian babies.

In the year 3535
Ain’t gonna need to tell the truth, tell no lies.
Everything you think, do and say, is in the pill you took today.

In the year 4545
Ain’t gonna need your teeth, won’t need your eyes.
You won’t find a thing to chew.
Nobody’s gonna look at you.

In the year 5555
Your arms hanging limp at your sides.
Your legs got nothing to do.
Some machine doing that for you.

In the year 6565
Ain’t gonna need no husband, won’t need no wife.
You’ll pick your son, pick your daughter too.
From the bottom of a long glass tube. Whoa-oh

I’m not sure about those decimal numbers, though. We’re buying them off with foreign aid so they won’t attack Israel, but it’s fairly clear that they’re funding certain radical groups under the table.

I tend not to take scientific words from a comedian. Which is what Mark Fradl is.

2. That’s probably because you were not born in the 1970s. It is your job to prove that it is wrong that the same people who panicked about global cooling are now panicking about Anthro-Global Warming. Not to mention that many of the mathematical models that have been used in the past 8-10 years have been proven to be faulty at best, treasonous at worst.

3. Sometimes, you have to accept the fact that there is not always a logical explanation for everything. And you have to accept that sometimes, what happens…well…just happens.

2. There are NO peer reviewed scientific studies that predicted global cooling that I have ever seen - anyone care to link to one???. Yes, it was a theory, and yes the media took it and ran with it. But it was just a theory…which lead to research…which lead to peer reviewed studies…which led to the last 30 years of scientific discovery on the issue…. which led to the still evolving theory of Global Warming. Evolving, yes, but again at some point you have to say “Wow, the evidence is really looking strong.”

3. Wubba - so…you argument is that science is SOMETIME wrong so therefor it’s ALWAYS wrong. Ya… time for me and probably everyone else to stop wasting time trying to address you with logic. Or at all.

In the year 2000 the term “scientifically proven” will come to mean “I’m right and I don’t want to talk about it.”

*In the year 2000*

Heh, yes, that was a bit of a cheap shot. Sorry. And yet…

“The fact of the matter is that peer review is not infallible. It has errors, biases, and skewed results that can and usually is overlooked, in order to either get more money, grab more headlines, or further an agenda.”

Peer review certainly is not infallible - depending on the peers in question - but once you dismiss it out of hand, what’s left? (Other than just making shit up, that is.) One can take issue with the lazy distillation of an extremely complicated body of scientific research into “the world is ending and it’s all the fault of, like, technology and stuff” without deciding that science itself is necessarily corrupt. The problem is not so much how results are being obtained, but in what conclusions are being extrapolated from those results; this, of course, is not a new phenomenon.

(By the way, the inevitable P.J. O’Rourke reference here is “All The Trouble In The World”, which I think on balance might actually be his best book.)