To reopen debate about credibility of scientific community with Patrick Henry

My job isn't to convince you of the sound science behind global warming. I could do just about as well convincing creationists that evolution isn't a plot to destroy their religion. My job is to point out that the scientific community is correct to support the best theory that fits their evidence. That when the media reports on these scientists and their predictions they are not losing their credibility. You don't believe in global warming. Well, that doesn't mean you're right. In essence your argument is thus, I don't believe in X. All the well-reasoned scientists, Nobel Laureates, accurate models, fifty year old predictions, basic scientific understandings which support X are therefore wrong and therefore being wrong, they lose their credibility. -- I'm sorry, no. Your entire argument is contingent on you being right. In fact, the possibility that you are wrong, suffices to negate your argument. So could you be wrong? --- "I could convince you of just about anything if I fed you enough misleading information had enough people lie for me..." You couldn't be convinced of anything by being given misleading information? I'm happy to point out where you've been mislead if that helps. Numbers of people believing other things (your last list by the way was of many people who argued that the IPCC didn't go far enough). Why sunspots don't explain global warming. Comparing the difference in heat output vs. the heat retention we are seeing today. Even if by some fluke, you were right, and the majority of climate scientists were absolutely dead wrong... there's still good reasons why they should have believed themselves right (the massive amounts of evidence). In science being wrong is perfectly fine, so long as wrong is where a good argument and the evidence lead you and you're willing to change your mind when contrary evidence comes to light. -- You suggest that a good scientific understanding of global warming and the real effect it has on the planet is roughly equal to believing the earth is flat. My point was that the number of people who believe something is a moot point. It's the core claim behind the fallacy of numbers. My point was that the people you referenced don't matter. It doesn't matter who believes what; where is the evidence? What does the evidence support? If you don't see how exactly evidence works to support a proposition then you are lost. I don't believe the earth is roughly spherical because I'm told to believe that by websites with a forgone conclusion, but rather I find it a compelling proposition on all angles. * The moon, sun, other planets are spherical it shouldn't be hard to believe that the Earth might also be spherical. ** Likewise, the planet Venus, our so called sister planet has an atmosphere primarily composed of CO2 and the surface temp is hot enough to melt lead and hotter than the surface temp of Mercury (more than twice as close to the sun as Venus) due to global warming. * I understand that due to the forces of gravity pulling towards a center point that given enough mass things shall, due to basic physics, become spheres. ** Likewise, the basic physics of the greenhouse effect are such that chemicals like CO2, water vapor, CH4, will trap heat. * I understand that ships sailing off will disappear under the horizon due to the curvature of the Earth. ** Likewise, I see that the predictions of scientists since the 50s are coming to fruition as the ice caps are melting, the Northwest Passage is ice-free in summer and through much of winter. All the temperate zones are shifting north and for the last half a decade every year we've beat the record for the hottest year on record. The reasons why one interpretation of the data is better than another is because that interpretation explains more. The way we improve our theories is by finding things which are not explained and incorporating the new data into a new theory. We understand that Darwinian evolution is better than Lamarckian evolution because it explains things better. We understand that Einsteinian physics is better than Newtonian because it explains things better. We understand that global warming is a better explanation of the current warming trend than grasping at random straws of "sun spots", or "heat island effects", or lists of individuals who may not fully agree. Next, you don't understand science, as I can tell from your "rebuttal": -- "all gases are green house gasses if you open the door and let all the rest of them come in." -- "We all live on a planet, not in a green house that is being monitored to allow only Co2 in." You seem to believe that greenhouse gases are gases used in greenhouses. That is the most misguided thing I've heard in a long time. Greenhouse gases are gases which cause the greenhouse effect which retains heat like greenhouses retain heat. For example, even in places far too cold to grow warmer climate plants, they can be grown in a greenhouse. This is because with very little work, you can retain the heat which would otherwise disperse. Well, there are some gases which have the same effect on the entire planet, roughly turning Earth (or Venus) into a massive greenhouse. Rather than radiate the excess heat back into space it remains on Earth longer and causes the climate to, on the whole, be warmer. Greenhouse gases are a bit like a blanket. They keep the heat a bit longer and it warms up the planet. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we are releasing massive amounts of it into the atmosphere. We've given the planet a blanket and it's getting hotter than it should. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. It's always been there. If we had no greenhouse effect at all we'd freeze during the night without the ability to retain our heat. A wet heat is certainly worse than a dry heat (for more than just greenhouse reasons) and water vapor is a greenhouse gas. However, it comes and goes as humidity. It's a regular part of our environment and has been for millions of years and human activity doesn't change it. The CO2 we're pumping into the atmosphere hasn't always been there, and with the increased heat retention we're going to have increased water vapor, compounding the effect of adding massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Further, the computer models do take water vapor into account. http://en.wikipedia.org... * CO2 isn't the only chemical released when things are burnt. However, the connection between CO2 levels and increased heat are well established. Further, CO2 is almost a product of burning carbon. And is being released in massive quantities. * Models are switched out because the newer ones are more accurate not because the previous ones were completely wrong. We need to explain the warming better than we are currently explaining it. That's nuance not the core of the argument. So far we've underestimated global warming at every turn. -- I personally liked Stephen Colbert's response to Griffin in his "The Word" segment. "To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have" -- Because whose to say the island nation of Micronesia wants their country above sea level. "I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings." -- Because clearly the energy companies asked prior to dumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere causing the global warming. Who is this massive list of signatories to the Kyoto protocol to demand we avoid radically changing the climate? The actual science is clear, Global warming is a reality. Bush-appointed blowhards do not change this, not when they head up NASA nor when they say stupid things.