Do the ends justify the means?

Question

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html

Yes, we are still stuck on the Himalayan glaciers...

"The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.
Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research."

"Having been forced to apologise over the 2035 claim, Dr Pachauri blamed Dr Lal, saying his team had failed to apply IPCC procedures.
It was an accusation rebutted angrily by Dr Lal. ‘We as authors followed them to the letter,’ he said. ‘Had we received information that undermined the claim, we would have included it.’
However, an analysis of those 500-plus formal review comments, to be published tomorrow by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), the new body founded by former Chancellor Nigel Lawson, suggests that when reviewers did raise issues that called the claim into question, Dr Lal and his colleagues simply ignored them.
For example, Hayley Fowler of Newcastle University, suggested that their draft did not mention that Himalayan glaciers in the Karakoram range are growing rapidly, citing a paper published in the influential journal Nature.
In their response, the IPCC authors said, bizarrely, that they were ‘unable to get hold of the suggested references’, but would ‘consider’ this in their final version. They failed to do so.
The Japanese government commented that the draft did not clarify what it meant by stating that the likelihood of the glaciers disappearing by 2035 was ‘very high’. ‘What is the confidence level?’ it asked.
The authors’ response said ‘appropriate revisions and editing made’. But the final version was identical to their draft."

You people on the believer side of Y/A browbeat or delete questioners here. Scientists and politicians censor or attack others for disagreeing with the "consensus" opinion. Wild claims of the end of civilization are made to assert your point. Big Al Gore declares the debate over. Temperature stations positioned over air conditioners are used, while temperature stations set up properly are ignored.

You attack and try to isolate any opposition, to gain the ends, one world government. Does the cause of AGW lose momentum as more fraud is uncovered?

Answer 1

A lot of the "science" behind AGW is a result of confirmation bias where the results are found that fit in with the pre-conceived ideas that were formed a priori (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias#Biased_search_for_information ).



Think how much money has been spent in trying to prove the validity of the AGW theory. What's truly amazing is that there is so little real evidence produced. What do you think you could find evidence for with a budget of billions?

.

Answer 2

If the ends have to justify the way then the way have to be unjustified to start with. Since there is not any approach to recognise with simple task whether or not the way will reap the ends, anything can continually pass flawed, it's greater to stick inside moral barriers. You cannot construct a normal well by way of a individual evil.

Answer 3

Well as the planet rapidly cools off because of the current severe solar minimum the liberal claims only supported by the Vatican's religious peer review system and not the scientific method will be discounted by all who have a real scientific education. But religion and its off shoots have brought us death by religious oppression before. The liberals it seems are planning another save the world inquisition in which they intend all but their faithful followers to die in order to reduce the worlds population so they will have the resources to live out their lives in comfort.



And this is the one and only real reason for the entire AGW political fantasy, to reduce the worlds population during the coming cool down so they can live a life of extravagant luxury on the resources of the dead. To visualize the kind of life style the average liberal desires to live just look at how their religious leader Big Al lives. The average conservative has the lowest environmental foot print on the planet while the average liberal has the most gross and wasteful. After all is that not the true meaning of conservative to conserve resources not waste them as silly liberals do.





http://docinthemachine.com/2007/02/15/flawedpeers/

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message307338/pg1

http://m.climaterealists.com/index.php?id=2516

http://minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/2009/01/earth-on-the-brink-of-an-ice-age.html

http://swampie.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/what-the-vostok-ice-core-data-says-about-global-warming-and-more-importantly-cooling/

Answer 4

Our young people are not being taught history and weather history is ignored by others.

In 1925 there was an eighteen month draught in NC, SC, GA and TN, The Savannah river almost went dry.

In 1930 the Missouri river almost went dry. It was called the dust bowl, the farmers lost their farms.

1934 terrible floods. It was 105 degrees in July in Chicago and other northern cities. No A/C. This remains the hottest year on record.

1935 terrible hurricane

1938 hot. The worst Hurricane year on record.

Now i ask you, there were no such thing as greenhouse gas then, What caused it. Just a Normal weather cycle..Just like the one we just went through.

Answer 5

No. Bad science is bad science, no matter who publishes it. One example is that temperature stations are often located in airports and are not always sited in areas unaffected by the activity. Still, when you look at global data, there is little doubt that the world is warming and citations of local conditions ("It snowed in Colorado this winter. Therefore, there is no global warming.") are, at best, disingenuous. At worst they follow the "studies" paid for by Big Oil.

Answer 6

No the ends do not justify the means especially when it comes to "man made" climate change. I mean we have hit the tipping point every five years without a major problem. How many times do we have to go past one of their dire warnings before the politicians stop listening to these people?

Answer 7

To the proponents of global warming, there is only the ends. The means are irrelevant, no matter how many lives and economy's are destroyed.

Answer 8

its definitely losing momentum even without skeptical intervention as the effects are rather... missing

Answer 9

That's why it's called Alarmism.