Okay - I'm going to say, pre-emptively, that at this point Luckmann I at least am thoroughly confused by what, if anything, you were attempting to say regarding the need or lack thereof of debating whether claimat change exists and whether, if so, it is attributable to man, purely setting aside the (Not imo funny, but I don't care that much) presumed sarcastic nature of the holocaust comment.
I originally assumed it was in the nature of "Can't we agree that polution is a problem without needing aa additional catastrophe to motivate us?", but at this point, you seem to have said "No, that's not it", and I haven't the foggiest where you are going with the whole question unless you simply feel it's too politicized for anyone to rationally convince anyone else - in which case I disagree, and feel that the argument about whether reasoned debate can ever convince anyone is highly politicized and wish those that think it can't would quit trying to convince me of their point of view - {G}.
That said . . .
I'm not meaning to say that at all. I'm saying that with studies involving climate change, you have to measure a large land area over a long period of time, a commitment which not many scientists are unwilling to make - mainly because everyone seems to believe the debate is settled. What I meant by 'all-encompassing' was that it studied the entire globe at once and proved beyond a shadow of a doubt which position was correct, which as you point out, will never happen. Therefore the accuracy of each of the smaller studies cannot be fully determined at this time, because as you said, science is not indispuable (which I had already stated, if you look a few posts back). I would have no case against anthropogenic global warming if I didn't look at smaller studies (speaking of which, did you look at this site?). All I am trying to say is that there seems to be substantial evidence that anthropogenic global warming is a myth, and that these smaller studies seem to add up. Plus there is the question of motive - and I highly doubt the oil industries are paying people off, because someone would've noticed and the media would've blown it sky-high. That, and as I said before, organizing that many people into a conspiracy is virtually impossible (expanse of territory, a principle argument James Madison uses in one of his Federalist papers on how to control the effets of faction).
Sorry, but no, I don't accept your fundamental premise that we have to do some overarching study to confirm what thousands of smaller studies have already shown. Given insufficient data, it is always possible that five blind people describing various aspects of the elephant are in fact looking at something else - but after the fiftieth, one hundredth, two hundredth report, calling for additional studies saying we want ONE blind person to go over the elephant square inch by square inch duplicating the work done by the other 200 blind people - no, it's no longer asking for some reasonable doubt to be dispeled.
Particularly when, with apologies, this is the twentieth time the same group of people have asked for 'just one more more really comprehensive study', to back up the last 19 more comprehensive studies that all back up the same picture of an elephant we could have drawn with the descriptions of the first fifty people that told us "Hey - there's an elephant. Here. It's in the middle of the room!".
You're long past the point I believe you don't believe in the descriptions. I now believe you and yours just don't believe in elephants, regardless of how detailed the description is.
Also, I might point out that there is also a debate over the age of the Earth still as well (Google the Intelligent Design movement, if you will), and that Charles Darwin also predicted the existence of 'missing links' which should comprise a very sizeable portion of the fossil record. I don't know about you, but I've only heard of about 2 or 3 (archeopterix, Lucy? the human/ape, maybe one other I don't remember). I've heard of more complete dinosaur skeletons being dug up.
I don't want to get into that particular debate though. The reason I bring this up is that yes, there is no reasonable doubt that science accepts these as theories. Whether they are true or not has yet to 'proven' to the extent which science is capable, and just because one is generally more accepted than another does not make the lesser one 'irrational', because even the best of us can be biased. This is the focal point of my argument against anthropogenic global warming - that scientists may be personally motivated to support a position, even if they secretly know it is false.
I'm sure you don't want to get into that debate, given the extraordinary inadequacy of the intelligent design movement, although I think that gives everyone a cue as to how deeply your misapprehensions regarding what qualifies as science go. I particularly like the parallels between your insistence on "Gee, one more, really comprehensive climate measurement would convince me" and the insistence of creationists (Putting a lab coat on does not turn a fundamentalist into a scientist, nor does calling it "Intelligent Design" make it "Not Creationism". Sorry.) that there if there were just a few more missing links found above and beyond the ones found so far, they would be convinced.
Sorry, but I believe we've heard that song before. The most famous lyrics are probably the ones where the fundies claimed it was just impossible for amino acids to form without divine intervention, before that was disproved, then it was natural protein synthesis, then RNA couldn't form naturally . . . and as each of these was discovered and verified, it turned out that it was that all important next step that couldn't happen without divine intervention.
And then, on top of everything else - you posit, but provide absolutely no evidence for, some 'personal motivation' for them to ignore your position. "It's not a conspiracy, it's just a vast array of people personally motivated to ignore all the evidence that would prove my position!".
Mmmmm Hmmmmm. Right.
This leads me to my next point: if it is truly an irrational position, then destroy it with logic and physical evidence. The scientific method is not kind to irrationality, as I am certain you know. Debates arise not because one side is irrational, but because both sides claim to have logic and evidence. The question is thus, whose evidence is correct?
The best philosophical observation about science is that it is falsifiable. We know that something is scientific, because it makes predictions that can be tested and verified or disproved.
The only falsifiable prediction you make is "If we wait and see, despite all the evidence of climate change, you'll see it doesn't happen!". No theory to be debated, no underlying principles to argue, no evidence to present - you're irrational in the same sense a drunk saying 'No, watch, I can drive' because the last time he drove drunk he didn't crash is irrational.
Sorry, no, you're not showing any signs of being able to walk a line of straight logic and are showing every sign of fundamentalist poisoning in your brain, so no, you can't drive. That doesn't guarantee a sober driver won't crash the car too, but having a sober rational driver makes the odds of surviving immensely better.
Anyway, I hope that you will consider doing some of your own research on this topic. If you do the research and conclude that they have the better argument, then fine, I support you wholeheartedly. However, if you believe the mainstream ideas without question, that doesn't mean you're smart, it means you're gullible. Use the various conclusions of smarter people to fuel your own position, but don't take it wholesale, because if you do then it's not your belief.
Oh - I've done my research on this. I just happen to read the research that has passed peer review.
You have chosen to read the 'research' that gets posted in the Washington times, by people that can't pass peer review.
Jonnan
