General Climate Discussion

[Shamus]

Originally posted by Sabre
 If a scientist gets money from an enviromental group instead, does that mean we should automatically discount his/her conclusions as "tainted" by the anti-capitalist agenda of some enviro groups?

Yes we should.

I was trained to, and still do "follow the money".

When ever I see so called independent studies it's the first thing I do, and you know something?, it can be applied to campaign contributions as well.

shamus

[Sabre]

Originally posted by Hortlund
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Annexes.pdf

Pages 15-39 are the contributors to the report. As you can see, they all have scientific qualifications you lying sack of s hit.

Ad hominen attacks are another tool used to defend a weak position.  And if you'll note from the source Hortland sites, it only lists where they work, not what their qualifications are.  So, if I clean the bathrooms at Sandia National Laboratories, does that make me a physicist?  I have to doubt Hortland has looked up each contributing member to see what their actual qualifications are in the climate science field, though I could be wrong.

[Sabre]

Originally posted by Shamus
Yes we should.

I was trained to, and still do "follow the money".

When ever I see so called independent studies it's the first thing I do, and you know something?, it can be applied to campaign contributions as well.

shamus

No, we shouldn't, elsewise anyone who gets any money for scientific work must be ignored by your standards.  In a debate this important, you have to address the arguments (which you still haven't done), not the argue-er.  That's because very few can be said to have no personal stake in the conclusions and implications.  The problem is, you appear to be applying your "follow the money" mantra in a one-sided fasion in this case.  As an example, Al Gore has financial interest in a carbon-trading company, gets $175,000 to deliver his "Inconvenient Truth" slide show in person, and has received literally a $100 million or more in support of his "crusade."  None of that has an iota of bering on whether the CO2 ice core data supports his conclusion that CO2 is driving global temperatures (it appear it does not).  If the data does not support the conclusion, following the money can only help you infer why it does not.  Engage the argument, not the source.

[Shamus]

Originally posted by Sabre
No, we shouldn't, elsewise anyone who gets any money for scientific work must be ignored by your standards.  In a debate this important, you have to address the arguments (which you still haven't done), not the argue-er.  That's because very few can be said to have no personal stake in the conclusions and implications.  The problem is, you appear to be applying your "follow the money" mantra in a one-sided fasion in this case.  As an example, Al Gore has financial interest in a carbon-trading company, gets $175,000 to deliver his "Inconvenient Truth" slide show in person, and has received literally a $100 million or more in support of his "crusade."  None of that has an iota of bering on whether the CO2 ice core data supports his conclusion that CO2 is driving global temperatures (it appear it does not).  If the data does not support the conclusion, following the money can only help you infer why it does not.  Engage the argument, not the source.

You see you are changing your own words now. You have gone from "discounted" to "ignored", it's a common practice, make the other guy look radical.

You are gonna have a real hard time finding any posts by me supporting Al Gore on anything.

There are plenty of scientist's with gold plated credentials who do not take cash from either side in this debate, I think I will put more credence in what they have to say if you don't mind.

But if you want to search for an expert to validate your position and then hard sell it, be my guest, I see it done with "experts" in court all the time.

shamus

[Angus]

Originally posted by Sabre
You missed the point of my bit of sarcasm, which was that the MMGW supplicants would probably just discount Singer (through guilt by association) rather than engage in his arguments. And you did exactly as I expected, i.e. commited the genetic fallacy.  That is, you attacked the source of the argument, rather than the argument itself.  This is a typical tactic of someone forced to defend a weak position.  So, Singer has associations with various thinktanks and policy groups that have received grants from oil companies.  What does that have to do with his credentials as a scientist, or with the data he sites?  Either the satellite data supports his conclusions or it does not.  Same goes for his other arguments and their supporting data.  If a scientist gets money from an enviromental group instead, does that mean we should automatically discount his/her conclusions as "tainted" by the anti-capitalist agenda of some enviro groups?

I attacked his choice of what he promoted as well as the correctness of some statement(s). Didn't know he was oil related. But now I do

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Sabre
Ad hominen attacks are another tool used to defend a weak position.

So is the fallacy of appeal to authority, which you committed by referring to the guy as a "climate scientist".

[cpxxx]

Originally posted by Hortlund
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a days after the Nobel prize was awarded for global warming work, an alarming new study finds that warming signals are stronger, and happening sooner than expected, due to increased human emissions of carbon dioxide and an Earth less able to absorb them.

Carbon dioxide emissions were 35 percent higher in 2006 than in 1990, a much faster growth rate than anticipated, researchers reported in Tuesday’s edition of the peer-reviewed Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The researchers cited three factors: global economic growth; the global economy becoming more carbon intense — since 2000 more carbon is being emitted to produce each dollar of global wealth, they noted — and a decline in the land and oceans’ ability to absorb carbon from the atmosphere.
 

Omigod:O An even MORE alarming study, MORE alarming than the last alarming study has finds that the warming signals are stronger, and happening sooner than expected. I'm alarmed all right, alarmed that in the face of criticism of MMGW an attempt is being made to alarm people even further in an attempt to get their viewpoint accepted.  

There is nothing new in this type of report. Next week there will be another one further emphasising the potential for calamity. Everything is treated in a tabloid style for the consumption of the general public.

As for Singer, so what if he was funded by an oil company. Does that make him wrong? Is he a liar? Is he ignoring the obvious and 'inconvenient truth' for the sake of a few dollars?

The constant criticism from all GW enthusiasts is that we critics and unbelievers are all ignoring the obvious. We're all right wingers, dupes of oil companies, pilots, car nuts etc with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Some might be but I think most of us are simply the kind of people who are suspicious of attempts to influence the the mass of people to accept a 'truth' that has yet to be proven. A truth that has more holes in it than the Titanic. What I find disturbing in particular is the number of people out there making a lot of money out of MMGW. They won't want that particular fire hose turned off.

The more apocalyptic the predictions. The less I believe it.

[Angus]

You might want to know that Gore shared his nobel with a branch from the UN that has 2000 scientists working on research about GW.
I don't really see UN as a special camp, at least not as clearly as those working directly for the oil companies.
That is a direct paralell to what the tobacco companies tried in the 60's after the link between smoking and lungcancer etc was discovered.
Guess what, - with every research the data manifested itself better, and as more extreme.
Now we know, and the Marlborough man smoked himself to death. We now laugh at their "results".....

[soda72]

So on a side note whatever happened to that ozone hole thing that was talked about in the late 80's and early 90's? Is it still getting bigger as was predicted or did we pass some new laws that saved us?

[JB73]

Originally posted by soda72
So on a side note whatever happened to that ozone hole thing that was talked about in the late 80's and early 90's? Is it still getting bigger as was predicted or did we pass some new laws that saved us?

funny you should ask...

I heard a report on TV the other day about this:

http://www.todaysthv.com/news/news.aspx?storyid=55006

http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90781/90876/6288940.html


both recent, 1 posted today

[Boroda]

Originally posted by SkyRock
I think many of you on these boards are trying to be too political about this topic.  Eventually, man's impact on this planet will be something to be lived with on a daily basis!

All our hydrogen bombs, CO2 release and other huge things are no more then a mosquito bite for Nature.

The level of Caspian sea raised and felt back for  60-70m in last 1500 years. Now that's the real power. Not even speaking of Ice Ages, it's almost impossible to imagine.

[john9001]

Originally posted by soda72
So on a side note whatever happened to that ozone hole thing that was talked about in the late 80's and early 90's? Is it still getting bigger as was predicted or did we pass some new laws that saved us?

""Warmer weather and more storms this year are the reason the hole is slightly smaller, said NASA atmospheric scientist Paul Newman.""

so "climate change" (global warming) is closing up the ozone hole.

very interesting.

[lazs2]

It just keeps getting better and better..  as cpxx points out.. the alarmists will say anything at this point...

Any time anyone brings up anything they go into a fit... look at horlund.. he almost came unglued when his heros were attacked..  The truth is that there really are very few "scientists" in the UN panel that have anything to do with climate.. it is a relatively new science... hortlands implosion proves how insane the whole thing is.

skyrock.. sorry.. but you need to understand how co2 and greenhouse gas works.. a doubling does a certain amount of wave retention... a further doubling does almost nothing.. we are about 85% to a doubling at this point and it has added almost nothing to global temperature... It just isn't that big of a factor.  almost no one still thinks co2 is that big of a player except maybe hortlund and you.

pretty silly in any case... we can't even put out a simple forest fire... we think we can stop the planet from heating and cooling?   we can't predict next weeks weather..  we think we know what it will be in 50 or 100 years?

really... how gullible are you guys?

lazs

[soda72]

Originally posted by john9001
""Warmer weather and more storms this year are the reason the hole is slightly smaller, said NASA atmospheric scientist Paul Newman.""

so "climate change" (global warming) is closing up the ozone hole.

very interesting.

Now lets not rush to judgement, the UN would need to vote on that first.

[Silat]

LOL
This is the same Singer who worked as a shill for the tobacco companies to spread lies about tobaccos dangers? Meaning he claimed there arent any.
This guy has been refuted by 99% of the worlds "experts".