Global Warming

[TheNiche]

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've explained my theory. I've explained the financial mechanisms that support it. Is there a flaw in the reasoning?

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.

Indeed there is a big difference. ...a big irrelevant difference. If criticism is valid and erodes the validity or reliability of a study, then it becomes less useful or not useful at all. That a lot of effort has been expended on a crappy study does nothing at all to advance a theory. Science does not require for there to be an answer. Sometimes the most correct answer is to acknowledge that we do not know and at this point in time cannot know.

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.

I'd agree with you. It'd be ludicrous to say that they were all funded by Green industry. I'd suspect that most of the funding for climate change study comes from government, but that is not without its pitfalls, either...as I have already explained.

[Jax]

Before reading anything at junkscience.com, read a bit about the publisher, "Steven Milloy". He hardly seems unbiased. And the site does not seem to link to any published (peer reviewed) scientific studies - only articles in the media and self published articles. What I am really interested in is peer reviewed articles casting doubts on global warming. I know one of those national post article on junkscience (Climate change: The Deniers

) was withdrawn because one of the scientists in question was badly misinterpreted. I know this because it's from a Canadian paper.

I can't comment on or indorse globalwarming.org because I have no idea who the publisher is.

I guess there's no such thing as an unbiased source. Although I think the journals Nature and Science are about as close to unbiased as you can get.

[gwilson]

Before reading anything at junkscience.com, read a bit about the publisher, "Steven Milloy". He hardly seems unbiased.

I can't comment on or indorse globalwarming.org because I have no idea who the publisher is.

I guess there's no such thing as an unbiased source. Although I think the journals Nature and Science are about as close to unbiased as you can get.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to find a source that isn't going to seem biased if his POV is on one side of an argument.

Al Gore is biased.

The information on JunkScience and GW are not editorials.

[Jax]

Al Gore is a politician not a scientist and I never cited him as a source, and I never will.

Some of the links on there certainly are editorials and none of them appear to be in peer reviewed scientific journals. There are a lot of Fox News and National Post articles on there, both of which I consider extremely biased.

[TheNiche]

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.

Why is this thread so entangled over credentials and supposed biases? The last thing that matters is the voice communicating an argument.

What matters is that the argument is sound.

[TJones]

Al Gore is a politician not a scientist and I never cited him as a source, and I never will.

Some of the links on there certainly are editorials and none of them appear to be in peer reviewed scientific journals. There are a lot of Fox News and National Post articles on there, both of which I consider extremely biased.

So, what you are saying is that this particular article is a pure fabrication, and the reporters who wrote it, just wantingly risked ALL their credentials and newsworthiness all for the sake of Rupert Murdoch ? You sir, are just as delusional as your GW scientists buddies.

THis is the article of which I speak of.

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

[tommyboy444]

I've explained my theory. I've explained the financial mechanisms that support it. Is there a flaw in the reasoning?

Yes there is. but you keep hiding from it.

1. Oil companies have much more to lose than small environmental start ups.

2. environmental comapnies have no incentive to pay for research that will benefit them. why? because it is produced free for them by non-interested parties and based on strong scientific evidence.

There is your flaw Niche! Prove your theory otherwise. Nope, you keep declining to.

if you are really that cynical to think that the main drive of science is to just secure more funding or to scare people than there really is no point even addressing you. of course when i started this thread, i promised myself not to get in a debate with you, but your unique combination of pompous arrogance and nativity has made it hard to resist.

[gwilson]

Yes there is. but you keep hiding from it.

1. Oil companies have much more to lose than small environmental start ups.

2. environmental comapnies have no incentive to pay for research that will benefit them. why? because it is produced free for them by non-interested parties and based on strong scientific evidence.

There is your flaw Niche! Prove your theory otherwise. Nope, you keep declining to.

if you are really that cynical to think that the main drive of science is to just secure more funding or to scare people than there really is no point even addressing you. of course when i started this thread, i promised myself not to get in a debate with you, but your unique combination of pompous arrogance and nativity has made it hard to resist.

Sadly, a big drive for much of science IS to generate income to support further development. You cannot hide from this fact. Ask anyone who has had a fellowship at MIT (one of my best friends for example).

Oil companies are the devil. I hate them. 30 billion in profits while people choke on fuel bills is ridiculous. That being said, if I could get a large chunk of their stock, sit on one of their boards or be a high level executive, I'd do it in a heart beat. I'm a capitalist.

Environmental companies have much to lose if the GW fad fades. Carbon credits, green technologies, pseudo-green technologies (things that are sold as green, but aren't really, like Green Mountain Energy for example) are just a few markets that would die. You're talking BILLIONS of dollars here as well. Not as many billions as if the oil companies buckled, but still significant.

[KinkaidAlum]

Yes there is. but you keep hiding from it.

1. Oil companies have much more to lose than small environmental start ups.

2. environmental comapnies have no incentive to pay for research that will benefit them. why? because it is produced free for them by non-interested parties and based on strong scientific evidence.

There is your flaw Niche! Prove your theory otherwise. Nope, you keep declining to.

if you are really that cynical to think that the main drive of science is to just secure more funding or to scare people than there really is no point even addressing you. of course when i started this thread, i promised myself not to get in a debate with you, but your unique combination of pompous arrogance and nativity has made it hard to resist.

It's best to put him on ignore. I did that about a week ago and reading this board has become a lot more fun again.

[TJones]

I can prove it , there have always been enviromentalists, the fact is now that the enviromentalists have also become opportunists, and capitalists. A few scientists got together and made a few accords on their beliefs and their interpretation of data collected that there is a possiblity that global warming is occuring, and that man may be responsible for it, either whole or in part. Some Greenpeacers got ahold of their findings, and began to scream louder than those who simply don't believe those scientists theories, so THEY are the ones who were heard. Now, you even have some of the ORIGINAL scientists who signed their names to the data collected back in 1992, actually REVERSING the way they think, after the timespan for which the whole warming theory was supposed to have taken place, has now ended.

Of course scientists, being human also, don't want to be made a fool of or lose face, are still deciding to stick to their guns. Why.... 1) Because they have built their whole lives and reputations around their belief, and 2) because as soon as they admit they might be wrong, they lose their funding, and these type of science geeks aren't prepared to go huff it out in the real world.

I hate repeating myself, but you have the head "Weatherman" threatening to pull meteorologists licenses and stamps of approval, If they DON'T jump on the GW Bandwagon. How ridiculous is that tommyboy ?

[Jax]

Please back up your points with some references. Otherwise it's just garbage.

Nobody loses their funding for admitting they might be wrong. You show a total lack of understanding of the scientific system. It sounds like your arguments are based on what you hear from Fox News or junkscience.com. Are you actually an academic? Are you speaking from experience, or just repeating what somebody told you?

I'm out of here. THis discussion is a huge waste of my time.

[TJones]

Please back up your points with some references. Otherwise it's just garbage.

Nobody loses their funding for admitting they might be wrong. You show a total lack of understanding of the scientific system. It sounds like your arguments are based on what you hear from Fox News or junkscience.com. Are you actually an academic? Are you speaking from experience, or just repeating what somebody told you?

I'm out of here. THis discussion is a huge waste of my time.

Am I a scholar of science ? No, I have a degree in business, but I still had to take some courses at my University, and have been listening to the rants of Greenpeacers, like yourself, scream with eyes popping and veins in necks bulging, about how we are killing the Earth and opponents to Global Warming asking to show verifiable data to support it, when none of them have been able to prove their theories, since I was in the 3rd grade back in the 70's. They won't cop to the fact that it is simply a THEORY. So, I will go with experience, as I have to walk on this Earth everyday, just like you. I'll make it an even playing field and conceed that Global Warming NOT existing, is also a THEORY.

I wish people like you would quit thinking that THEY are the only ones that have the right answers just because you stayed at a Holiday Inn last night. So, when do you get your polytechnic degree ? JAX, I know you are a really smart guy, but don't be lead down the media's primrose path.

"If you are afraid to visit the "liberal" wiki list page, here's one link from the american institute of physics (I'm a phsysicist). There are more links from professional societies of chemists, atmospheric scientists, geoscientists, etc. on the wikipedia page. " quote from JAX

Isn't there an English class somewhere around Rice, for cryin' out loud ! Just messin with ya.

I guess if I were like you and regurgitated all of Al Gore's material off his website, I would be justified, right ? After all, it isn't Fox or Junkscience. PLEASE.....don't go away mad, just go away.

[VicMan]

GWilson, Wikipedia is not supposed to be "notoriously liberal" - the cornerstone of Wikipedia is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view - Which states that no point of view is to be taken.

Wikipedia is notoriously liberal, so that doesn't surprise me. I've literally watch, real time, posts in Wikipedia that were not ultra critical of the war in Iraq be changed to be detrimental. For example, a wiki post was made about a school in Iraq that was built by US troops. The post was edited within minutes to state that it was a form of repayment for the hundreds of thousands of dead iraqis by the US troops, etc.

[musicman]

GWilson, Wikipedia is not supposed to be "notoriously liberal" - the cornerstone of Wikipedia is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view - Which states that no point of view is to be taken.

LOL when users are putting the information in.....what do you think happens?

[Jax]

This is going to be my last post here:

Why do you keep bringing up Al Gore?

I keep saying not to look at Al Gore for info on global warming, I keep saying go read some real science journals. I don't think Al Gore, Fox News, OR the National Post are unbiased sources. I do think scientific journals come pretty close to being unbiased though. They don't discuss the politics, only the data, and you can come to your own conclusions.

You say "none of them have been able to prove their theories", but you failed to point out that the "mainstream" scientific community agrees the likelihood is incredibly high that humans are causing global warnings. I don't know if I can quantify that but basically it means there is a greater chance that we are causing damage than not causing damage. If in all likelihood we're going to damage the planet why not try to do something about it? Is it worth risking the planet when it's highly unlikely that we're not damaging it? The worst thing that can happen is we can end our addiction to oil and our reliance on the Middle East for energy, and that's not a bad thing. On the other hand, if we ignore the vast majority of scientists who agree that there is a high likelihood of damaging the planet, the worst thing that can happen is that our future generations will have an even bigger problem to deal with.

Here are a few links to journals to start you out. Read a few abstracts and you'll see where the data about climate change comes from, rather than just hearing other people rant about it.

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?reques...0-0469&ct=1

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin...=1&SRETRY=0

http://www.nature.com/index.html

http://www.sciencemag.org/

P.S.

I can tell you're trying to get me angry by pointing out my spelling mistakes. It didn't make me mad but it did make me reply again which I really didn't want to do. I'm writing here from work and that's why I didn't have time to spell check. Sorry for that. I'm really wasting my time here so that is it from me.

[VicMan]

LOL when users are putting the information in.....what do you think happens?

And other users hold them in check.

See, Wikipedia is not a community where one person can edit every single article to his liking, because another person will revert his edits (i.e. undo them). There are entire groups of people who watch the recent changes list to check for people who are "vandals" (people who remove content without reasoning or discussion or people who insert junk into articles). Look at talk pages of famous subjects like September 11 and Saddam Hussein. Notice a lot of heated discussions?

[TJones]

I want you in this discussion, you got a seriously talented brain my friend. AND, I did say that I was just messing with you. I agree with you, if I truly believed that I was in some way endangering this planet that I would be the first to step up and do something. The fact of the matter is that I don't believe that we are any worse off than we were in the 70's when this whole thing really started. I do my part JAX, really, I do. I recycle, I have a flexfuel system car for the family to take trips in. I got rid of my Expedition, but I am guilty of owning some very old American Muscle that guzzles like a champ. I don't make unecessary trips. I don't waste water, I don't even water my lawn. I use propane most nights to cook. I am not exactly GREEN in all aspects, but I do what I can, just in case I am wrong. Because, I have been wrong, before..... I know, I know, that may come as a shock to most of you here on HAIF, but it is true. I just DO NOT believe in GW, could it be true, sure it could, I just haven't seen anything to convince me that it is real. You can't get upset because I don't see things your way. I am not mad at you because you disagree with me.

Let's talk about "funding" now. What happens if a scientist cannot prove his theory, what eventually happens ? He can't keep getting funding indefinately, now can he ? Especially when he/she comes to grips and has to admit that their work isn't producing ANY results, and is not a provable hypothesis.

btw, 30 years ago, the "MAINSTREAM" science clique all agreed that we were headed towards "Global Cooling", now what do you think about that "mainstream ?"

[Jax]

You can get funding for proving or disproving theories. For example, if an astrophysicist could disprove the fact that there appears to be "dark matter, he/she would win a nobel prize. If anybody could disprove the theory of relativity, same thing. It's just that they can't. If you set out to test the theory of relativity, and get results contrary to what is expected, that should only increase the interest in your research and most likely land you more funding (if your results are credible, duplicatable etc.).

As far as the cooling thing in the 1970s, I don't believe there was nearly as much research on that topic as there has been with global warming. I have heard that it was only a few journal articles (as opposed to thousands on global warming), and some newspaper stories. Don't quite that on me though. if you have time to search through Nature and Science, let me know how many articles you find on global cooling from the 70s, I'd be interested to know.

[musicman]

And other users hold them in check.

See, Wikipedia is not a community where one person can edit every single article to his liking, because another person will revert his edits (i.e. undo them). There are entire groups of people who watch the recent changes list to check for people who are "vandals" (people who remove content without reasoning or discussion or people who insert junk into articles). Look at talk pages of famous subjects like September 11 and Saddam Hussein. Notice a lot of heated discussions?

you have to take it with a grain of salt. as we've seen here, it isn't always accurate.

[Jax]

That's why you always have to read the references. If somebody writes something and doesn't cite a source, you can pretty much forget it. But if somebody links to some sort of credible document (government, university, etc) then you can accept it, or take it as if you read it at the source not at wikipedia.

Wikipedia is not a source of information, as much as it is a way of organizing information. Articles without citations are as good as fiction.

[cottonmather0]

Those Michael Crichton pages are outstanding, particularly the second one about policy agendas influencing scientific conclusions.

The global warming believers will probably say he's full of it and yet I suspect that 99 out of 100 such believers who would disagree with him (or attack the pieces) very likely cannot explain what exactly a 95% confidence interval is to begin with, much less why lowering the standard to 90% was such a significant decision in the example of secondhand smoke. Which, come to think of it, is exactly what the problem is that he describes.

[TheNiche]

Yes there is. but you keep hiding from it.

1. Oil companies have much more to lose than small environmental start ups.

2. environmental comapnies have no incentive to pay for research that will benefit them. why? because it is produced free for them by non-interested parties and based on strong scientific evidence.

There is your flaw Niche! Prove your theory otherwise. Nope, you keep declining to.

1) You make the claim that, "Oil companies have much more to lose than small environmental start ups," but that is not necessarily true. How do you reason? Is your claim supportable? Depending upon proposed legislation, various firms within the Green industry may have enormous sums at stake. Also, does it strike you as odd that you admit that my argument is conceptually sound but refuse to accept it as having any weight unless I can provide evidence to that effect when you're throwing a conclusion like this out there, not backing it up with either an argument or with evidence, and expecting that I prove my theory before you'll take it seriously? Are you familiar with the meaning of the word "prove"? I cannot prove the theory of gravity, that the sky is blue, or that I just typed the phrase "typed the phrase". Neither can you.

2) The fundamental issue being discussed is whether and to what extent there are multiple competing PR machines, not just how much is at stake. The Oil industry has something to lose (and they aren't the only ones) and the Green industry has something to gain; they each have an incentive to launch a PR campaign. Each can afford a PR campaign. Each also knows that PR transmitted by any given channel is an investment with diminishing returns and that so much money can be put into it that any further effort would at some point lead to negative returns. That is, each knows that PR can be overdone. With this in mind, that the Oil industry is presently more profitable than the Green industry or that it has more to lose may have very little bearing on the resources committed or the effectiveness of their campaigns. In fact, given that media is receptive to doom and gloom, that politicians can utilize fear as a mechanism to pander to various constituencies, and that the public's perception of Green industry is relatively good, Green has more and better channels available to it and surely gets more bang-for-the-buck on PR expenditures related to GW than does Oil.

3) Environmental companies do have incentive to pay for research of various sort that will benefit them...for instance proprietary consumer research, political consultative services, or product research. Additionally, depending upon the intention of the research, for instance if it is to provide prospective customers with a comparative representation of GW-related impacts depending on which product is purchased, then purer scientific research may be sought. Public agencies tend not to be willing to pay for that kind of thing. So your assertion that, "environmental comapnies have no incentive to pay for research that will benefit them," is incorrect and requires revision. They will pay for research that benefits them. You would likely be correct that they are less likely to pay for pure scientific research and that it is because the public sector foots the bill...at least, you would've been correct if you'd said that.

4) You claim "[research that benefits environmental companies] is produced free for them by non-interested parties and based on strong scientific evidence." I ask you, if the parties paying for research are non-interested, then why are they paying for research? Surely, if it was of no value to someone, then nobody would cut the scientists a check. The money is allocated because there are interested parties. Those interested tend to be politicians and moralists; clearly they have a motive to allocate so many millions of dollars. But what is that motive? Can they be trusted? Moreover, even if all politicians can be trusted and are acting entirely in what they perceive as the public's best interest, is there not an incentive for those individual scientists, scientific firms, and educational institutions (who as you point out, aren't very well-paid) to manipulate the methodology in such a way as the results stir controversy, leading to further study of the issue and more allocations of public funding? You seem to assume that greed only exists in the private sector, but I would contend that altruism is equally lacking throughout the public sector, among scientists, and especially among politicians. Do you have any objection to that contention?

if you are really that cynical to think that the main drive of science is to just secure more funding or to scare people than there really is no point even addressing you. of course when i started this thread, i promised myself not to get in a debate with you, but your unique combination of pompous arrogance and nativity has made it hard to resist.

I never said anything at all along the lines of that, "the main drive of science is to just secure more funding or to scare people". This is a straw man. Look it up...and this time, when you look it up, read it!

[tommyboy444]

1) You make the claim that, "Oil companies have much more to lose than small environmental start ups," but that is not necessarily true. How do you reason? Is your claim supportable? Depending upon proposed legislation, various firms within the Green industry may have enormous sums at stake. Also, does it strike you as odd that you admit that my argument is conceptually sound but refuse to accept it as having any weight unless I can provide evidence to that effect when you're throwing a conclusion like this out there, not backing it up with either an argument or with evidence, and expecting that I prove my theory before you'll take it seriously? Are you familiar with the meaning of the word "prove"? I cannot prove the theory of gravity, that the sky is blue, or that I just typed the phrase "typed the phrase". Neither can you.

2) The fundamental issue being discussed is whether and to what extent there are multiple competing PR machines, not just how much is at stake. The Oil industry has something to lose (and they aren't the only ones) and the Green industry has something to gain; they each have an incentive to launch a PR campaign. Each can afford a PR campaign. Each also knows that PR transmitted by any given channel is an investment with diminishing returns and that so much money can be put into it that any further effort would at some point lead to negative returns. That is, each knows that PR can be overdone. With this in mind, that the Oil industry is presently more profitable than the Green industry or that it has more to lose may have very little bearing on the resources committed or the effectiveness of their campaigns. In fact, given that media is receptive to doom and gloom, that politicians can utilize fear as a mechanism to pander to various constituencies, and that the public's perception of Green industry is relatively good, Green has more and better channels available to it and surely gets more bang-for-the-buck on PR expenditures related to GW than does Oil.

3) Environmental companies do have incentive to pay for research of various sort that will benefit them...for instance proprietary consumer research, political consultative services, or product research. Additionally, depending upon the intention of the research, for instance if it is to provide prospective customers with a comparative representation of GW-related impacts depending on which product is purchased, then purer scientific research may be sought. Public agencies tend not to be willing to pay for that kind of thing. So your assertion that, "environmental comapnies have no incentive to pay for research that will benefit them," is incorrect and requires revision. They will pay for research that benefits them. You would likely be correct that they are less likely to pay for pure scientific research and that it is because the public sector foots the bill...at least, you would've been correct if you'd said that.

4) You claim "[research that benefits environmental companies] is produced free for them by non-interested parties and based on strong scientific evidence." I ask you, if the parties paying for research are non-interested, then why are they paying for research? Surely, if it was of no value to someone, then nobody would cut the scientists a check. The money is allocated because there are interested parties. Those interested tend to be politicians and moralists; clearly they have a motive to allocate so many millions of dollars. But what is that motive? Can they be trusted? Moreover, even if all politicians can be trusted and are acting entirely in what they perceive as the public's best interest, is there not an incentive for those individual scientists, scientific firms, and educational institutions (who as you point out, aren't very well-paid) to manipulate the methodology in such a way as the results stir controversy, leading to further study of the issue and more allocations of public funding? You seem to assume that greed only exists in the private sector, but I would contend that altruism is equally lacking throughout the public sector, among scientists, and especially among politicians. Do you have any objection to that contention?

I never said anything at all along the lines of that, "the main drive of science is to just secure more funding or to scare people". This is a straw man. Look it up...and this time, when you look it up, read it!

More obfuscation from the Niche. Still waiting dude. Show me one example of green industries paying for research. That is what I have been asking from you from the BEGINING. Instead, you try and bore me to death with post after post of nonsense. I guess that is how you win debates on this board. People just get tired of replying to you.

[Guest Marty]

More obfuscation from the Niche. Still waiting dude. Show me one example of green industries paying for research. That is what I have been asking from you from the BEGINING. Instead, you try and bore me to death with post after post of nonsense. I guess that is how you win debates on this board. People just get tired of replying to you.

Well put him on ignore like kinkaidalum and countless others do, I am always in search for info you just have alot patients to read the whole post, I can decide that for my self as with anyone. don't attack a man for supplying info.

which usually turns out to be right.

[tommyboy444]

Well put him on ignore like kinkaidalum and countless others do, I am always in search for info you just have alot patients to read the whole post, I can decide that for my self as with anyone. don't attack a man for supplying info.

which usually turns out to be right.

No the whole point is that he supplies no info, just ramblings he plagiarizes from his college textbooks. still waiting.

[TheNiche]

Show me one example of green industries paying for research. That is what I have been asking from you from the BEGINING.

And I've asked you whether my theory was sound. You agreed that it was in post #18. I'm not inclined to research it because I don't have the time, but that makes it no less valid a theory.

[TheNiche]

No the whole point is that he supplies no info, just ramblings he plagiarizes from his college textbooks. still waiting.

Slander. See below for excerpt from HAIF Terms of Service, which you agreed to and are in violation of:

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this bulletin board to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law.

[tommyboy444]

And I've asked you whether my theory was sound. You agreed that it was in post #18. I'm not inclined to research it because I don't have the time, but that makes it no less valid a theory.

I agreed in the purist of abstract environments, but falls apart when applied to the real world. Or in Niche terms, you fail to account for all the variables in your equation.

If this was the 60's you would be defending the tobacco industries "scientific research" that showed that smoking was harmless and that the surgeon general was in cahoots with the nicotine gum industry.

Slander. See below for excerpt from HAIF Terms of Service, which you agreed to and are in violation of:

Remember, if someone is calling you out for not backing up your assertions, don't take the law into your own hands. You take them to court.

[VicMan]

If this was the 60's you would be defending the tobacco industries "scientific research" that showed that smoking was harmless and that the surgeon general was in cahoots with the nicotine gum industry.

Remember, if someone is calling you out for not backing up your assertions, don't take the law into your own hands. You take them to court.

Just remember, though, that on HAIF, the law is in Editor's hands. Editor is the judge, the jury, and the executioner

[Guest Marty]

Just remember, though, that on HAIF, the law is in Editor's hands. Editor is the judge, the jury, and the executioner

Hey, Redscare what have you been teaching this lad.