Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
tommyboy444

Global Warming

Recommended Posts

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal," concluded a report by 600 scientists from governments, academia, green groups and businesses in 40 countries.

Depending upon what span of time you're looking at, this is true, but it can also be made untrue depending on how the data is interpreted. We've had warmer average global temperatures, and we've had cooler temperatures. The statement is unclear, and is essentially meaningless.

Worse, there was now at least a 90 percent likelihood that the release of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels is causing longer droughts, more flood-causing downpours and worse heat waves, way up from earlier studies.

Whose studies are they citing? When were they conducted? What was the methodology? Has the methodology changed, and how? Were they peer reviewed? Were they published?

Those who doubt the reality of human-caused climate change have spent decades disputing that.

In the 70's, skeptics were questioning global cooling. Given the direction that we've gone since then, were they wrong to question it?

A conservative think tank long funded by ExxonMobil, she told Boxer, had offered scientists $10,000 to write articles undercutting the new report and the computer-based climate models it is based on. "I realized," says Boxer, "there was a movement behind this that just wasn't giving up."

Would opposing views have surfaced if there weren't money in it? Frankly, would views supportive of global warming have surfaced if there weren't money in it? Funding doesn't only come from private sources, and even within the private sector, it doesn't all go to Exxon. How much would Green Mountain stand to lose if the public stopped fearing GW? Never mind the circumstantial nature of such an argument, but the funding mechanisms make both camps suspect. Neither has the advantage on these grounds.

"They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry," says former senator Tim Wirth, who spearheaded environmental issues as an under secretary of State in the Clinton administration. "Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That's had a huge impact on both the public and Congress."

The science is uncertain. Any grade school science teacher worth their salt will tell you that all scientific knowledge is inherently uncertain. And science without a healthy dose of skepticism is no science at all.

In the NEWSWEEK Poll, 38 percent of those surveyed identified climate change as the nation's gravest environmental threat, three times the number in 2000.

That doesn't say a lot. It may just mean that other environmental problems have been adequately mitigated or that they aren't getting as much publicity any more. After all, air and water pollution have been declining pretty dramatically since the 70's, a lot of formerly endangered species have reached very healthy population levels again, and the ozone layer issue has been pretty effectively handled. ...so what's next on the list? And just because its at the top of the list (assuming that people polled are rational and can keep their heads on straight in the face of disproportionate media coverage) does that mean that it is all that bad or worthy of investment? Valid questions.

This summer, Texas was hit by exactly the kind of downpours and flooding expected in a greenhouse world, and Las Vegas and other cities broiled in record triple-digit temperatures. Just last week the most accurate study to date concluded that the length of heat waves in Europe has doubled, and their frequency nearly tripled, in the past century. The frequency of Atlantic hurricanes has already doubled in the last century. Snowpack whose water is crucial to both cities and farms is diminishing.

Don't buy in the flood plain, get rid of the NFIP, and use better building materials [Texas & Gulf/Atlantic states], go inside and turn on the A/C [Vegas & Europe], and hire some Aggies to farm Siberia and the Yukon. ...sounds flippant, but I'm serious. Problems solved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would opposing views have surfaced if there weren't money in it? Frankly, would views supportive of global warming have surfaced if there weren't money in it? Funding doesn't only come from private sources, and even within the private sector, it doesn't all go to Exxon. How much would Green Mountain stand to lose if the public stopped fearing GW? Never mind the circumstantial nature of such an argument, but the funding mechanisms make both camps suspect. Neither has the advantage on these grounds.

LOL yeah Green Mountain Energy is behind this whole global warming conspiracy. Sorry there is only one side buying scientist off. Please be honest on this point.

The science is uncertain. Any grade school science teacher worth their salt will tell you that all scientific knowledge is inherently uncertain. And science without a healthy dose of skepticism is no science at all.

Agreed, but when does skepticism become just contrarian. After awhile, after hundereds of studies that tell you one thing and only a dozen that tell you otherwise. There is NO reasonable uncertainty about the science. That is just propaganda.

That doesn't say a lot. It may just mean that other environmental problems have been adequately mitigated or that they aren't getting as much publicity any more. After all, air and water pollution have been declining pretty dramatically since the 70's, a lot of formerly endangered species have reached very healthy population levels again, and the ozone layer issue has been pretty effectively handled. ...so what's next on the list? And just because its at the top of the list (assuming that people polled are rational and can keep their heads on straight in the face of disproportionate media coverage) does that mean that it is all that bad or worthy of investment? Valid questions.

It would help to know what the top concern was back in 2000, but the point it was trying to make remains.

Don't buy in the flood plain, get rid of the NFIP, and use better building materials [Texas & Gulf/Atlantic states], go inside and turn on the A/C [Vegas & Europe], and hire some Aggies to farm Siberia and the Yukon. ...sounds flippant, but I'm serious. Problems solved.

Ha I am not even going to touch that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LOL yeah Green Mountain Energy is behind this whole global warming conspiracy. Sorry there is only one side buying scientist off. Please be honest on this point.

Hmmm......you say no flaming, yet, you would just rather laugh off others answers to your B.S. "study" ? Nobody said that GW was in any way a "conspiracy", in the back of your mind are you afraid that it might be ? All these "studies" are summed up with explanations that they are merely hypotheses, that have YET to be proven.

Agreed, but when does skepticism become just contrarian. After awhile, after hundereds of studies that tell you one thing and only a dozen that tell you otherwise. There is NO reasonable uncertainty about the science. That is just propaganda.

When the same dozen people are the ones that keep giving the hundreds of studies that tell the one thing, one tends to believe that there may be an agenda in there somewhere.

It would help to know what the top concern was back in 2000, but the point it was trying to make remains.

Here is a little insight for you. Well, at least as far as the concerns about Global Warming is concerned.

http://www.junkscience.com/jan00/robinso.html

Ha I am not even going to touch that one.

Here we are back at square one again with you laughing. Look, as soon as the GW proponents can explain the "Dust Bowl" of the 1930's to me, when there was absolutely NO industrialization. I will be prepared to listen further to their cackling, "The sky is falling......the sky is falling!" Until then, let them go eat their algae paste covered strawberries and kiwi, while they hug trees and drink their herbal teas.

I am now going to go jump into my gas guzzling American made Ford, and drive home to watch my 42" DLP boob tube that sucks up about 100kilowatts and hour, and turn on all the lights in my house, and drain half the water in my pool, then fill it up again, just because I CAN !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LOL yeah Green Mountain Energy is behind this whole global warming conspiracy. Sorry there is only one side buying scientist off. Please be honest on this point.

I suppose you think Exxon is the one behind the whole bout of global warming skepticism? Surely, you'd think that there would be others. But nine times out of ten, when someone is being bought off in this debate, it's Exxon's doing. I just don't buy that. I think that there are others that are twisting science for the sake of money and politics, but that Exxon is a very convenient boogeyman in the political arena. So if I am correct and natural resource production firms (including oil, gas, coal, and other various mining firms) along with utilities--which btw are far greater emittors of CO2 and have much more to lose than big oil--are in it together, with profit being the ultimate motivator...why is it do you think that firms that stand to gain from CO2 emissions caps would not buy off scientists of their own or contribute to PR campaigns? Because they're just nice?

...sorry. I'm not buying that, either. Companies are neither good or evil. They just care about bottom dollar. You may find a few that stick to their ethics (or at least have a good PR firm handling their image), but in the end, they'll do what they can to turn a buck. I'm not saying that Green Mountain is behind it all. But I would dare to say that they promote GW-related policy such as it furthers their financial interests and that there are plenty of other firms out there with similar incentives. And they aren't the only ones with an incentive to do so. Also bear in mind that so-called scientific studies paid for from public dollars have a tendency to recommend further study, and that inducing fear among politicians' constituents is a good way to bring it about. Scientists, like you or I, like to be employed.

Now, am I saying that the only thing behind GW is greedy scientists, corporations, and various politicians that stand to gain from it? No. Am I saying that the only thing supporting the skepitcs' positions are greedy scientists, corporations, and various politicians? No. My point is that the issue is confused and that the line of argument that someone or another is getting paid off isn't very effective, no matter whose side you're on. It is a non-issue one way or another, not only as the practical matter that I've discussed, but because it is a logical fallacy (see below). However, that the fallacy is often at the top of the list of arguments presented rather than the actual scientific data is indeed a concern. It speaks to the need in this country for more resources to be spent on public education, particularly in logic and economics.

Eugenics_expanded_ad_hominem.jpg

Agreed, but when does skepticism become just contrarian. After awhile, after hundereds of studies that tell you one thing and only a dozen that tell you otherwise. There is NO reasonable uncertainty about the science. That is just propaganda.

I recall from the article that the outcomes of studies has varied over time, and in fact that my criticism of that statement was that the author didn't adequately cite who was doing the studies, what their methodologies were, how they've been changed, etc. Also, I'm sure that there haven't been hundreds of studies launched in an effort to determine the same thing, over and over again. I expect a fair nubmer of attempts to independently confirm results, but I can't myself confirm that because the authors of the article didn't source anything. To what extent are the studies comparable? Do they overlap? Are they even studying related concepts? I would imagine not. The questions remain unanswered...and I refuse to take something at face value just because I read it in the news. After all, I've made the print news myself, in the past, and if I believed what I supposedly said, I'd be doubly a fool.

It would help to know what the top concern was back in 2000, but the point it was trying to make remains.

Yes. ...it remains inescapably in question.

Edited by TheNiche

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmm......you say no flaming, yet, you would just rather laugh off others answers to your B.S. "study" ? Nobody said that GW was in any way a "conspiracy", in the back of your mind are you afraid that it might be ? All these "studies" are summed up with explanations that they are merely hypotheses, that have YET to be proven.

When the same dozen people are the ones that keep giving the hundreds of studies that tell the one thing, one tends to believe that there may be an agenda in there somewhere.

Here is a little insight for you. Well, at least as far as the concerns about Global Warming is concerned.

http://www.junkscience.com/jan00/robinso.html

Here we are back at square one again with you laughing. Look, as soon as the GW proponents can explain the "Dust Bowl" of the 1930's to me, when there was absolutely NO industrialization. I will be prepared to listen further to their cackling, "The sky is falling......the sky is falling!" Until then, let them go eat their algae paste covered strawberries and kiwi, while they hug trees and drink their herbal teas.

I am now going to go jump into my gas guzzling American made Ford, and drive home to watch my 42" DLP boob tube that sucks up about 100kilowatts and hour, and turn on all the lights in my house, and drain half the water in my pool, then fill it up again, just because I CAN !

Touchy. For the first remark, that was just too funny. seriously, niche offered no proof that enviromental companies pay for science. why? bc its not true. why make obviosuly false claims? as for the second, niche even said others might interpret as flippant, and it really is. I was just trying to lighten the mood and like i said, not start a flame war. guess i should have used a B) instead?

really i just wanted to hear the opinions from the other side. i am not here to debate or argue, since i doubt i can change anyones mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i remember my geology professor say that the volcanic eruption of mount pinatubo released more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire industrial revolution. the result was a cooler planet and an intact ozone layer. imho, even if human activity affects the ozone layer, there are natural cycles that correct it. i cannot cite any proof. it's just a hunch. :)

that being said, i still think we should be responsible consumers.

Edited by bachanon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Touchy. For the first remark, that was just too funny. seriously, niche offered no proof that enviromental companies pay for science. why? bc its not true. why make obviosuly false claims?

I offer sound economic theory that seems to apply pretty well in a broad and general way. Rather than simply say that I am without proof, how about criticizing it. Can you? Does it not make sense? Is my theory not valid? If not, explain your position that I might adapt, clarify, or forfeit my own.

Honestly, my incentive to actually perform research so that I might be able to win an argument with you is pretty low. I'd be a fool to go to any legnth proving the matter, but that doesn't mean that I can't think critically for myself. I am no one's pawn.

Edited by TheNiche

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Marty

I think the Sun's solar cycle is whats doing it. The sun is the heart of Earth's body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"The questioning of the science made it to the Hill through senators who parroted reports funded by the American Petroleum Institute and other advocacy groups whose entire purpose was to confuse people on the science of global warming," says Sen. John Kerry.

And senators who believe in global warming aren't parroting either? They're just as reliant on scientists and reporters as the next person or senators who don't believe or are unsure about it.

---------

tommyboy444...you should post a poll asking if people belive in it, don't or are unsure. I'm in the unsure boat.

Number one, I haven't investigated it. And scientists are subjective beings as well and can skew their findings. Who's to believe?

I have a question too. Doubters are just that, doubters. Some may be deniers. The beleivers say the doubters/deniers have an agenda. Maybe they do. The doubters/deniers say the same thing back. I may be naive to this, but for what reasons would the believers have to make up such a thing? I could see why the doubters do...at least the petroleum industy types.

Edited by lockmat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i remember my geology professor say that the volcanic eruption of mount pinatubo released more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire industrial revolution. the result was a cooler planet and an intact ozone layer. imho, even if human activity affects the ozone layer, there are natural cycles that correct it. i cannot cite any proof. it's just a hunch. :)

that being said, i still think we should be responsible consumers.

I think the Sun's solar cycle is whats doing it. The sun is the heart of Earth's body.

I think that for the most part global warming hysteria is manufactured and unnecessary and my opinion is based heavily on evidence like that cited in these two posts - it seems to be quite hubristic to say that climate change is due soley to the actions of human beings. The world and the sun are just too big and complex that anything we do could cause what some people seem to think we can. We have geological records that show that the climate of the Earth is very dynamic and in the past has been much cooler AND much warmer in the past. Why do we think that 200 years of industrialization trumps 5 billion years of geology? Don't tell me that the science is settled, either. Nobel prizes are just being awarded today for research done 40 years ago towards conclusions that are much more definitive than the current speculation on the causes of global warming. Just 30 years ago climate scientists were worried about an oncoming ice age.

Furthermore, even if we could definitively prove that humans are the cause and could be the solution, is it really such a bad thing if average global temperatures rise by one whole degree Celsius? And if it is, is the cost of these problems less than the cost of the solution?

What if global climate change actually enhances economic productivity, as it did during the early part of the last millenium (when Greenland was called that for a reason)? Why do we think that today's climate is the most optimal and must never ever change?

And finally, why is it that the people who want to control all aspects of your life to begin with - taxes, cigarettes, healthcare, the UN - are also the ones who want to put artificial contraints on industry and capital utilization? Seems to me that it's just another guise for the same old agenda of centralization and putting government ahead of individual freedoms.

Edited by cottonmather0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the Sun's solar cycle is whats doing it. The sun is the heart of Earth's body.

I don't get why everybody thinks it's black and white. I've heard this solar cycle theory before. "If the sun's activity is decreasing, that must be the cause of global warming". My mom read an article one that said solar cycles must be the only cause of global warming. And it cited some scientist in Europe. I looked him up and it turns out he studies solar activity and he said the solar activity was decreasing, and some journalist interpreted that as the root cause of global warming. The problem with that is when you read the paper this scientist wrote, he was saying that the decrease in solar activity was so slight it would never impact global climate, it was just sort of fun to study from an esoteric astrophysicist's point of view. So I concluded that the journalist must have only read the abstract, saw "solar" and "decreasing" and written up that global warming is completely natural.

Moral of the story. Don't trust a journalist's interpretation of science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I may be naive to this, but for what reasons would the believers have to make up such a thing? I could see why the doubters do...at least the petroleum industy types.

As I recall, Al Gore bought a big share of a firm that produces solar panels or wind turbines. Without committing a logical fallacy, I can accuse him of trying to profiteer on the backs of innocent hard-working Americans that deserve inexpensive electricity rather than this pricey and unreliable alternative that can only possibly work if there is government regulation that forces it to work. But I cannot say that he is doing something that I consider despicable, and that therefore the theory he espouses as a justification for regulation is wrong. I'd be a hypocrite if I did.

Edited by TheNiche

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a question too. Doubters are just that, doubters. Some may be deniers. The beleivers say the doubters/deniers have an agenda. Maybe they do. The doubters/deniers say the same thing back. I may be naive to this, but for what reasons would the believers have to make up such a thing? I could see why the doubters do...at least the petroleum industy types.

Lockmat, for the same reasons a Petrol Co. might have for doubting.... MONEY!

Didn't you know there is a whole lot of money floating around in those Hippies' pockets ? Organic food, organic clothing, organic fuels. We have been all over this before. I really wish tommyboy would have done a search and found the global warming threads.

If Gore wanted to make everyone "aware" of what his views are, then why not just GIVE away the DVD, or give away free tickets to his movie ? For every person using fossil fuels in their car, there is one wanting a way to use some OTHER fuel. If DiCraprio wanted to help save rainforests and timberlines, why not make 5 movies that the studio will pay $20mil a piece for, and go buy it up ? Woody Harrelson, could do the same, but he only gets paid scale now, so he couldn't buy much in California.

I am a doubter, what possible agenda could I have in order for me to "deny" or "doubt" that we are closing in on a cataclysmic armeggedon, and by our own hand at that?

Like I said tommyboy, show me some correlation data, where the planet is worse off now, than it was in the 1930's, where weather is concerned. What you call Global Warming, I call a natural trend in the Earth's atmosphere. B)

btw, Marty, your avatar, is that Rutger Hauer in Bladerunner ?

Edited by TJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I recall, Al Gore bought a big share of a firm that produces solar panels or wind turbines.

But globalization came up way before his time in the public spotlight, didn't it? And just for arguments sake, can't one also say that he bought them because he too was reacting to scientific reports and that he was simply investing in his beliefs?

Can you list any other things like this that might show some kind of bias? I just want to gather information.

In my naivety on the subject, I see scientists reacting to an observation. The only agenda believers might have that I can think of is that they're environmentalists - tree huggers.

But which came first, the tree hugger or the scientific evidence that humans do harm to our environment?

Edited by lockmat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am a doubter, what possible agenda could I have in order for me to "deny" or "doubt" that we are closing in on a cataclysmic armeggedon, and by our own hand at that?

That's true. But what does tommyboy have to gain? He's just a regular guy as far as we know.

I am unsure but am leaning more towards doubting.

I want to counter your argument about there being money in it for the hippies too. Before globalization was popular and mainstream, what money was there for them? All the things you've listed have only become popular in recent years. Any money supporting globalization wouldn't have made them much money if they were invested in those things.

Edited by lockmat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lockmat, GW is all in theory. I pray the theory is wrong, but a theory is NOT proof that it is actually happening.

Here Lockmat, you are gathering info. You will enjoy this tidbit.

http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=221

I don't think tommyboy means any malice as well, but you don't laugh off other's beliefs because they don't allign with your's. Especially when the thread's poster says he doesn't want a flamewar ? That is badform and just plain rude.

If there is money to be made off of people's fears, it will be made. P.T.Barnum said it best, and I quote, "There is a sucker born every minute!"

Edited by TJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I offer sound economic theory that seems to apply pretty well in a broad and general way. Rather than simply say that I am without proof, how about criticizing it. Can you? Does it not make sense? Is my theory not valid? If not, explain your position that I might adapt, clarify, or forfeit my own.

because you offer sound economic theory without any proof to back it up. you made a weak argument, i called you on it, and now you are getting defensive.

how about this? exxon pays to discredit global warming because they have a vested interest in denying fossil fuels contribute to it and the resources to do so (it being the 2nd biggest company in the US and the most profitable). green energy has an interest in proving global warming but has far less resources. But Green Energy does not need to pay for research that says global warming is real, because it already exist, produced by governments, universities, etc.

Honestly, my incentive to actually perform research so that I might be able to win an argument with you is pretty low. I'd be a fool to go to any legnth proving the matter, ...

Yes you would be a fool to go to any length, because you would be searching for a long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes you would be a fool to go to any length, because you would be searching for a long time.

Flame war material. Cut it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Marty
btw, Marty, your avatar, is that Rutger Hauer in Bladerunner ?

The Hitcher >:)

Edited by Marty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lockmat, GW is all in theory. I pray the theory is wrong, but a theory is NOT proof that it is actually happening.

Here Lockmat, you are gathering info. You will enjoy this tidbit.

http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=221

I don't think tommyboy means any malice as well, but you don't laugh off other's beliefs because they don't allign with your's. Especially when the thread poster's says he doesn;t want a flamewar ? That is badform and just plain rude.

Thanks for the link. But what's globalwarming.org's position? Do they have one or do they try to stay objective?

And I know it's just a theory. But believers never think it's a theory, just like evolutionists. Doubters are always the ones who call it a theory.

I didn't think that you thought he intended any malice. I was just making a point for arguments sake, not "being difficult" sake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that oil companies have a lot more to gain by influencing policy regarding global warming than hippies do (money wise). Somebody compared Green Mountain Energy to Exxon. Exxon has a lot more at stake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Hitcher >:)

Even better Marty. >:)

My favorite line in the movie. Rutger Hauer has the knife between C.Thomas' legs, and Rutger leans over to tell the cop at the roadblock where they are headed. The cop looks down and sees Rutger's hand and says, "Ok, just move it along sweethearts." in a disgusted tone. That movie is hilarious and thrilling at the same time.

Sorry, back on subject, C.Thomas was driving a big ol' gas guzzlin' Cadillac in that movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But globalization came up way before his time in the public spotlight, didn't it? And just for arguments sake, can't one also say that he bought them because he too was reacting to scientific reports and that he was simply investing in his beliefs?

Can you list any other things like this that might show some kind of bias? I just want to gather information.

The buy-in he made was only a few months back. It was publicized, at least in the business pages. He may cite your justification (along with gaining publicity for the cause), but based upon my interpretation of the facts, what he's been doing is driven by a drive for fame, fortune, and political power.

In my naivety on the subject, I see scientists reacting to an observation. The only agenda believers might have that I can think of is that they're environmentalists - tree huggers.

But which came first, the tree hugger or the scientific evidence that humans do harm to our environment?

Tough one. The word "harm" as it relates to your question presupposes that change induced by human activity can be good or bad. A pure scientist, attempting to be objective, would refrain from making such unsupportable statements, as good or bad are within the realm of a moralist (i.e. the treehugger). After all, harm to one may be the salvation of another, regardless of a person's or society's intent or the lack thereof. But the two perspectives are not mutually exclusive among individuals and science is to the vast majority of people a perspective adopted temporarily out of necessity, rather than a way of life. Considering our human propensity for religion and moral systems of all sort, and considering the difficulty with which people adopt science in any intentional way, I would venture to say that the tree hugger and moralist probably came first.

But, speaking from a scientific perspective, I am not certain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the link. But what's globalwarming.org's position? Do they have one or do they try to stay objective?

And I know it's just a theory. But believers never think it's a theory, just like evolutionists. Doubters are always the ones who call it a theory.

I didn't think that you thought he intended any malice. I was just making a point for arguments sake, not "being difficult" sake.

Using that logic, GW theorists would be doubters also. They just doubt, that the Earth or the solar system is in ANY kind of natural change. Because that kind of information is not tangible to them. We can't possibly know what kind of cycle the Universe is in. But astonomers can tell that the Earth and other planets might be off course a little because of historians writings, and some of the same scientists who have studied Global Warming have also studied Gallileo and the like. They doubt ANY other theory but their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Niche: Yes, it is amazing to think that Exxon is behind all of this doubt. Amazing that one comapny, along with the API and a dozen scientist hired by them, can manage to create an image of great controversy in the scientific field. How the truth can be so easily distorted in this day and time scares me.

To all: I am no tree hugger. I have worked for 2 of the biggest oil companies in this town. But when i find out that I have been the target of a mass propaganda machine i get angry, and I would hope it would do the same to some of you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
because you offer sound economic theory without any proof to back it up. you made a weak argument, i called you on it, and now you are getting defensive.

Your criticism was, "seriously, niche offered no proof that enviromental companies pay for science. why? bc its not true." Argumentum ad ignorantium. I strongly suggest that you look it up, lest you be ignorant of a pretty fundamental concept underlying the philosophy of science.

how about this? exxon pays to discredit global warming because they have a vested interest in denying fossil fuels contribute to it and the resources to do so (it being the 2nd biggest company in the US and the most profitable). green energy has an interest in proving global warming but has far less resources.

Are you familiar with how our financial systems work? You do realize that venture capital will be forthcoming to any business idea that can hold water. It really doesn't matter who you are or even whether you're profitable today. If there is even the slightest chance that an investor could get in on the ground floor of an industry that would be responsible by act of congress for replacing the capital stock of electricity generation plants, or even a fraction of it, then not only will they buy into it, but they'll infuse it with capital and do everything within reason to see that such a fate is brought about.

...besides, it is ridiculously easy to try to scare people. The news media are in the entertainment business, and there's apparently nothing more entertaining than apocalyptic scenes. They eat this stuff up.

But Green Energy does not need to pay for research that says global warming is real, because it already exist, produced by governments, universities, etc.

Ah, but I've already addressed this. See post #5, paragraph #2. Also, there's more to a PR campaign than studies. How many people do you know that read studies? Do you think journalists working for the big media outlets read studies? Even if they do and they write a very precise column, do you think that it'll remain intact by the time that their editors get through with it. There is far more to the political side of GW than reports on shelves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems to me that oil companies have a lot more to gain by influencing policy regarding global warming than hippies do (money wise). Somebody compared Green Mountain Energy to Exxon. Exxon has a lot more at stake.

I merely meant to provide a comparison to illustrate that there is an incentive in each case so as to further my counterpoint to the authors of the article, who were perpetrating a circumstantial ad hominem that could be turned right back around on them. My intent was to neutralize the whole line of thought on account of that no amount of money contributed to political causes from either side of the debate or from any source has bearing on either the truth or the optimal policy position.

Can we please move on to something that matters...like debate over the science of GW and its economic impacts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To Niche: Yes, it is amazing to think that Exxon is behind all of this doubt. Amazing that one comapny, along with the API and a dozen scientist hired by them, can manage to create an image of great controversy in the scientific field. How the truth can be so easily distorted in this day and time scares me.

How do you know that it was only Exxon? That they were singled out by the authors of the article does not preclude the possibility...or IMO the very high likelihood...that more firms than just Exxon and the API were involved. Maybe Exxon just did the worst job of covering its tracks. Maybe the writers only singled out Exxon because they were an easy target for political jabs, on account of how large they are.

That the truth is so easily distorted scares me too. This is why even though I'm in other ways very hands-off politically, and would prefer drastic decreases in government spending and taxation, that I'm so readily willing to spend on education. There's nothing more dangerous than a voting public that can't think for itself.

To all: I am no tree hugger. I have worked for 2 of the biggest oil companies in this town. But when i find out that I have been the target of a mass propaganda machine i get angry, and I would hope it would do the same to some of you.

Btw, has it occured to you that you may have been caught in the crossfire of multiple propaganda machines?

It doesn't make me angry for being targeted, though. Countervailing propaganda is a predictable side effect of democracy and free press. The alternative, one-sided propaganda, would be far more dreadful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your criticism was, "seriously, niche offered no proof that enviromental companies pay for science. why? bc its not true." Argumentum ad ignorantium. I strongly suggest that you look it up, lest you be ignorant of a pretty fundamental concept underlying the philosophy of science.

Niche stop hiding behind your latin phrases and rhetorical flourishes. I asked you to prove your point, that environmental companies pay to have research to promote their business. You declined. Why? Because you cant. It is up to you to prove your assertions, not I. Or as you would say, "the niche committed a argumentum ad ignorantium." thanks for the tip!

Are you familiar with how our financial systems work? You do realize that venture capital will be forthcoming to any business idea that can hold water. It really doesn't matter who you are or even whether you're profitable today. If there is even the slightest chance that an investor could get in on the ground floor of an industry that would be responsible by act of congress for replacing the capital stock of electricity generation plants, or even a fraction of it, then not only will they buy into it, but they'll infuse it with capital and do everything within reason to see that such a fate is brought about.

And your point? Are you ignoring the risk that such an investment would entail? Yes i am very versed in the way our capital system works. It enables me to see past the BS that you fling in a desperate attempt to sound competent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well here is some light reading for you tommyboy.

http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/01/...&frame=true

Oh, and tommy, you wanted to know where the money comes from for GW theorists to make their assertions ?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251458,00.html

and HOW could I forget, the ACTUAL Godfather of the enviromental movement ! ! !

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250789,00.html

that last story link should give you nightmares.

Edited by TJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether people think global warming is controlable or not is debatable, but I've never understood how anyone could believe that air pollution from transportation, factories, or construction actually helps the earth's air or global warming issues. That's just wierd. Making money for a few guys seems more important than making earth livable for a few billion in a few years.

Case in point: The North Pole. Word on the street has it that the Pole may be totally water in the next 100 years; in other words, no ice. You would imagine that would be a concern. However, Russia recently did a submarine ride on the North Pole sea bottom, and they just so happened to find a crazy amount of oil and other energy resources. What do you think the governments are talking about more now; looking into preserving the North somehow by looking at alternate sources of fuel, or looking into drilling the melting North Pole sea bottom for the same energy sources that are polluting the air?

It's turned from a green world to a greed world, and I don't think there's any debate about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its great when you start a simple question. However when you get these manifestos of feedback. :wacko:

I would imagine you want a simple answer. yeah or nay.

If you have time to see topic Historical Galveston photos, there are pics of seawall 1956. Fifty years have passed and you can see how much has eroded. Thats all the proof I need.

Peace on Earth all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I merely meant to provide a comparison to illustrate that there is an incentive in each case so as to further my counterpoint to the authors of the article, who were perpetrating a circumstantial ad hominem that could be turned right back around on them. My intent was to neutralize the whole line of thought on account of that no amount of money contributed to political causes from either side of the debate or from any source has bearing on either the truth or the optimal policy position.

Can we please move on to something that matters...like debate over the science of GW and its economic impacts?

My point was just that the oil and gas industry has a lot more money to throw at this issue than the environmentalists. I think that's a valid point. It's not like each side is equally trying to influence the science.

I don't see many scientists criticizing global warming, except the ones on the oil and gas payroll, and they aren't even publishing new science, they're just criticizing science that has already been published. There's a big difference.

In the scientific community (at Rice), I have yet to meet anybody that doubts global warming. And I think saying that all of the scientists at Rice are funded by "green" companies would be far fetched. Those "green" companies don't have enough money to fund science, at least not compared to other funding sources.

Edited by Jax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i remember my geology professor say that the volcanic eruption of mount pinatubo released more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire industrial revolution. the result was a cooler planet and an intact ozone layer. imho, even if human activity affects the ozone layer, there are natural cycles that correct it. i cannot cite any proof. it's just a hunch. :)

that being said, i still think we should be responsible consumers.

Mt. Pinatubo released a lot of aerosols and particulate matter (dust and ash) into the atmosphere, which blocked the sun and effected global climate (global temperatures dropped). That doesn't have anything to do with greenhouse gasses or global warming. How do you attribute the fact that it "released more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire industrial revolution" to cooling?

Also, the effects of this eruption damaged the ozone layer, they did not repair it.

Here's an article (note this is written by climate scientists, not jounrnalists).

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/295/5558/1242

EDIT: Damn, I guess you have to be a subscriber to view it. I guess you could go check out Wikipedia or something as an alternative.

Edited by Jax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its great when you start a simple question. However when you get these manifestos of feedback. :wacko:

I would imagine you want a simple answer. yeah or nay.

If you have time to see topic Historical Galveston photos, there are pics of seawall 1956. Fifty years have passed and you can see how much has eroded. Thats all the proof I need.

Peace on Earth all!

Good thing you're not a scientist, then. The beach is smaller because it has eroded away, not because the sea level is higher. Barrier islands naturally shift and move and change their shapes because of ocean currents and weather. Sand is unstable as it is, yet we have built cities on barrier islands and expect them to be there for all time (much like the statist view that the climate must never change from now on).

Whether that beach erosion is exacerbated by manmade factors like building jetties, dredging of artificial channels in the bay (ie the Ship Channel and the Intracoastal), wetland mismanagement, or land subsidence due to groundwater pumping is a perfectly legtimate question, but it has absolutely nothing to due with global warming.

Please tell me this post was a joke.

Mt. Pinatubo released a lot of aerosols and particulate matter (dust and ash) into the atmosphere, which blocked the sun and effected global climate (global temperatures dropped). That doesn't have anything to do with greenhouse gasses or global warming. How do you attribute the fact that it "released more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire industrial revolution" to cooling?

Also, the effects of this eruption damaged the ozone layer, they did not repair it.

Here's an article (note this is written by climate scientists, not jounrnalists).

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/295/5558/1242

EDIT: Damn, I guess you have to be a subscriber to view it. I guess you could go check out Wikipedia or something as an alternative.

Whether or not it's caused cooling or warming, the point is that volcanic eruptions like this regularly release more crap into the air in one eruption than mankind ever can. And if that's the case, then it's hubris to think that climate change is something we can control, relatively speaking, by spending a lot of money and driving hybrid cars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who ever said that volcanos release significant greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere? If I could prove to you that emissions from volcanoes are insignificant compared to what humans are putting into the atmosphere, would that make you believe that climate change may be something we could control/reduce?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just read this article about the propeganda machine designed to deny global warming.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/

Not trying to start a flame war. Would like reasonable discussion about your views.

Both sides are well funded. It is a business, whether we want to believe it or not.

The fact that Al Gore is making millions off of it is testament to this fact.

Climatic change exists. But no matter how many times Al Gore says the jury isn't out, it still is. There are LOADS of scientists who, while accepting climatic change as a fact, dispute the argument that man is the primary or even a major cause. These scientists aren't all on the payroll of Exxon.

Seeing a subject like this so politicized ruins it. It divides people on it and destroys the possibility of rational and reasonable changes. There are plenty of reasons to live "green" that have nothing to do with global warming, but these reasons are buried by the hype of global warming.

Glenn Beck did an interesting piece on Global Warming a few months back. You might want to try to YouTube it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you believe the US geological survey, volcanoes release 130 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html

And what about Humans? Well from what I've read, humans produce approximately 6 billion tonnes (if you believe the department of energy http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html). Do some simple math and you can see that the amount of greenhouse gas produced by volcanoes is only a few percent of what humans produce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who ever said that volcanos release significant greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere? If I could prove to you that emissions from volcanoes are insignificant compared to what humans are putting into the atmosphere, would that make you believe that climate change may be something we could control/reduce?

You can PROVE this, eh?

Can you also disprove the volumes of gases put in the air by livestock?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are LOADS of scientists who, while accepting climatic change as a fact, dispute the argument that man is the primary or even a major cause

Rather than just stating that as a fact, why not list a few for us to read about? I know the documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" listed a bunch of scientists who it claimed did not believe global warming was caused by humans, but when I looked up those scientists, most of them had released personal statements to the contrary, stating that the filmmakers had deceived them. There might be a few scientists out there who doubt that man is the primary cause of global warming, but they are an extreme minority. Like maybe a few percent of the scientific community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me we have had a nice little 150 year reprieve from the Little Ice Age ( which spanned from the 1300's-1850). So in theory, the planet is returning to modern history's global norm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rather than just stating that as a fact, why not list a few for us to read about? I know the documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" listed a bunch of scientists who it claimed did not believe global warming was caused by humans, but when I looked up those scientists, most of them had released personal statements to the contrary, stating that the filmmakers had deceived them. There might be a few scientists out there who doubt that man is the primary cause of global warming, but they are an extreme minority. Like maybe a few percent of the scientific community.

That isn't the piece I am talking about at all. It was an episode of the Glenn Beck program on CNN's Headline News channel. http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/beck.climateoffear/

Most of the people involved have been written off as in the pocket of big oil and other industries rather conveniently though. This is the problem, if you speak out about Global Warming, you're slandered. It is a dirty game, and it shouldn't be.

The fact is, they aren't a "SMALL MINORITY", they just aren't nearly as vocal nor are they getting the media coverage. This is how things like this work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait.. I want some names of scientists. And don't give me an article by CNN or Fox News.

It seems to me that if you ask non-scientists (journalists, political commentators, etc) there is a lot of doubt about global warming. But this is not the case in the scientific community. It's not true that if you speak out about global warming you are slandered, unless you speak out without data to back yourself up (in that case you deserve to be slandered). Most of these global warming doubters are non scientists and are writing commentaries or editorials, not scientific research.

If you are so sure that they are not a small minority, then name some scientists, list some journal articles, and let's discuss it. But simply stating that CNN says they are not a small minority doesn't cut it.

It's funny that you say that the doubters don't get media coverage, and then you send me a link about a CNN program about the doubters. It seems like they get a lot of media coverage.

When I was disputing the volcano issue, I stated some numbers and cited some articles to back them up. That's what you need to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What scares me is that this thread doesn't surprise me.

People linking to Fox News to demonstrate that global warming isn't real?

People claiming Green Mountain Energy can control (i.e. buy) public opinion and Congress in much the same way as the Petroleum or Auto Industries?

Folks claiming that volcano eruptions cause more damage than anything mankind can EVER do?

The funny thing is, there really isn't a debate anymore in the scientific community about global warming. MASSIVE MAJORITIES who actually study climate change are in agreement.

The only thing this thread proves is that money can buy public opinion just as well as it can buy votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wait.. I want some names of scientists. And don't give me an article by CNN or Fox News.

It seems to me that if you ask non-scientists (journalists, political commentators, etc) there is a lot of doubt about global warming. But this is not the case in the scientific community. It's not true that if you speak out about global warming you are slandered, unless you speak out without data to back yourself up (in that case you deserve to be slandered). Most of these global warming doubters are non scientists and are writing commentaries or editorials, not scientific research.

If you are so sure that they are not a small minority, then name some scientists, list some journal articles, and let's discuss it. But simply stating that CNN says they are not a small minority doesn't cut it.

It's funny that you say that the doubters don't get media coverage, and then you send me a link about a CNN program about the doubters. It seems like they get a lot of media coverage.

When I was disputing the volcano issue, I stated some numbers and cited some articles to back them up. That's what you need to do.

If you're not capable of reading, I'm not interested in the discussion with you. That isn't meant as an insult.

I've watched an Inconvenient Truth and done plenty of research on the Global Warming topic. You could take it upon yourself to do five minutes of Google searches and maybe even watch 35 minutes of a program to be educated on the opposing side of your argument.

It is what someone who chooses to make informed decisions does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did a 5 minute google search and a found a few scientists, bunch of journalists, a bunch of conservative political commentators, and a bunch of conservative politicians. I can't find any evidence to confirm your statement that global warming skeptics in the scientific community are actually not a minority.

You are the one who made the assertion that global warming skeptics are not a minority, so the burden of proof is on you. Although I admit this is not easy to prove.

By the way I have not watched An Inconvenient Truth, or that CNN special, but I have read a number of articles in Science and Nature on this issue.

Edited by Jax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rather than just stating that as a fact, why not list a few for us to read about?

Reid Bryson is an American atmospheric scientist, geologist and meteorologist. He was born in Michigan in 1920. In 1948, he became chairman of the Department of Meteorology at the University of Wisconsin. He became the first director of the Institute for Environmental Studies in 1970. He has written more than 230 articles and five books, including Climates of Hunger, which won the Banta Medal for Literary Achievement. He is a skeptic of the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

Flaggman's Canada

Editorial Times

On Media Bias:

Newsweek biased quiz

Business and Media Institute

The following links have nothing to do with finding a skeptical climate scientist.

We've had this whole Global Warming fight on here a few years back.. nobody will change their minds or split off from whichever camp they have stuck to. Many will instantly dismiss these following links since he's *just* an author and go ahead i guess, nobody is going to persuade anyone else to change views here.. i've always thought they were fun reads myself.

Crighton 1

Crighton 2

Crighton 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reid Bryson is interesting (still doesn't prove he's not a minority), and I will look and see what article he has written on the issue... but I have no interest in what Michael Chriton has to say. He's a fiction writer, not an atmospheric scientist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...