

The Climate Change Climate Change: The number of skeptics is swelling - zurla
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html 

======
evolve2k
This article is useless and skewed. Im from Australia and the senator in
question is a known skeptic who benefits from promoting those interests who
would have most to loose in a carbon constrained economy. "Skeptics" continue
to benefit from saying oh its not happening. A senator taking a (likley) free
trip to the US for a conference against climate change, big news!

You might find this more informative:
<http://wakeupfreakout.org/film/tipping.html>

At least you have some facts to check. The wsj article is mere hyperbole.

For less bias in the news you read check out newscred.com (no affiliation).

~~~
alexgartrell
From the article: "The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality.
The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since
2001, despite growing concentrations of C02."

I'm all for cleaning up emissions, but I'm for it because I like the
atmosphere to be clean. Fear tactics are what's been driving "green-[A-Za-z]"
for a long time and I think it's important to reexamine and do it for the
right reasons.

~~~
nazgulnarsil
and temperature over the short term is a bad reason to change opinions.
skepticism SHOULD be growing because the climate change advocates are using
cherry picked statistics and bullying.

------
noodle
i don't know that any news corp outlet has reported anything to support the
notion of climate change.

and to be clear, i'm not commenting on the issue itself, just the unbalanced
coverage from this specific source.

~~~
iron_ball
Some would argue that "facts" should be argued on their own merits, regardless
of source. But spin and interpretation are incredibly important, and a partial
source cannot be taken as a provider of impartial facts.

------
Alex3917
Not only is this a dupe, it's a dupe from this morning.

Today the house passed the most important environmental bill in the nation's
history, and that gets zero upvotes in favor of this. Really?

------
mattmaroon
Why do these global warming skeptic articles keep popping up here? Global
warming is certainly OT, and skeptics' theories are not really any more
interesting than any other conspiracy theories.

~~~
TriinT
Freeman Dyson is a skeptic.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTSxubKfTBU>

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k69HUuyI5Mk>

Do you have the audacity to call him a conspiracy theorist? He's only one of
the greatest scientists of the 20th Century. What kind of track record do you
have to belittle Dyson? Seriously.

The point I am trying to make: not at skeptics are born equal. Some are
ignorant fools. But others are well-educated and well-trained in the Natural
Sciences. Your simplistic view that all skeptics are conspiracy theorists is
ideology. You looked at no data. You did not check the assumptions. You did
not create any of the climate computer models. You probably did not read any
papers on the topic. So, your beliefs stem from where exactly!? This is not an
attack. It is an honest question.

BTW, they don't call it Global Warming anymore. It's now called Climate
Change. You see, since the climate is a dynamical system that is continuously
changing, the name "Climate Change" _per se_ has absolutely zero information.

~~~
Alex3917
From the video you linked to:

"The public thinks you have to wait until global warming is proved before you
do something, but that's completely ridiculous."

The only thing from this video that suggests Dyson is a skeptic is the title.

~~~
TriinT
You missed the point. This article explains things in greater detail:

<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html>

------
TriinT
It does not matter that the number of skeptics is swelling. It would not
matter either if the number of warmists were swelling. Science is about
observation, experimentation. Science is not about consensus. The truth does
not care about what the ignorant masses think.

It does not matter either if the number of skeptic scientists is swelling.
What matters is the opinion of the scientists who have studied the global
climate. The opinion of the experts is the only one that matters. And since
the experts may be wrong, their opinion should be viewed as an opinion, not as
an absolute truth.

Moreover, I want to stress something important. This is not a game of "us
versus them". The truth does not care for such petty human weaknesses. The
climate is an extremely difficult problem, and anyone who's too sure of his /
her views is probably not a real expert. And scientists should have the
freedom to speak what they think, without fearing being attacked by the
gullible masses.

I finish with a quote by Robert Oppenheimer:

 _"There must be no barriers for freedom of inquiry. There is no place for
dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question,
to doubt any asssertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors."_

