Global Warming

[TJones]

Now you're blowin' my mind. TJones... a democrat?!

Well, that wouldn't be soooooo strange. Here is what will turn your mind into gelatin. I have actually seen a someone who claimed to be a Democrat that actually was a Socialist who hardly ever mentions the words Global Warming or Climate Change, although he truly enjoys the word "change". !!!

[barracuda]

To be clear as a matter of record--because stating it only once is obviously never enough--I've given up on you and others because you have demonstrated poor reading comprehension and a penchant for straw men and other fallacies and therefore are not worthy of the time or effort that is required to even communicate with you, much less attempt to productively debate you.

In answer to your question, you have not insulted me, but only because I am inclined to believe that this behavior is accidental on your part rather than a deliberate attempt to waste my time and piss me off. The error is mine for believing that I could productively debate you, when in fact I could no sooner debate with a Global Warming^TM apologist over the reliability or application of scientific interpretations of anthropogenic climate change or an appropriate policy response than I could a Mormon missionary over the reliability of Joseph Smith's writings. It is an error that I will not soon repeat.

(Refering to you and others as "bitches" was an inappropriate pejorative, merely a projection of my own inner frustration. I retract that comment as it serves no purpose except as a distraction.)

Many of the debates in this forum are fueled, at least in part, by differences in terminology. Some folks use the standard definition of global warming; i.e. - the indisputable fact that the earth is warming. Others evidently expand the definition to include "man-made", which hasn't been proven, and thus, in the minds of some, means global warming itself must be a hoax and those who believe the facts around global warming are "apologists". Perhaps that's why some of your posts in this thread failed to receive responses that were acceptable to you, despite the attempts of at least three different people to do so. Peace.

[Highway6]

WSJ Link

Supply, as we know, creates its own demand. So for every additional billion in government-funded grants (or the tens of millions supplied by foundations like the Pew Charitable Trusts), universities, research institutes, advocacy groups and their various spin-offs and dependents have emerged from the woodwork to receive them.

None of these outfits is per se corrupt, in the sense that the monies they get are spent on something other than their intended purposes. But they depend on an inherently corrupting premise, namely that the hypothesis on which their livelihood depends has in fact been proved. Absent that proof, everything they represent—including the thousands of jobs they provide—vanishes. This is what's known as a vested interest, and vested interests are an enemy of sound science.

In one of the more telling disclosures from last week, a computer programmer writes of the CRU's temperature database: "I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seems to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. . . . Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight. . . . We can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!" This is not the sound of settled science, but of a cracking empirical foundation.

Additional WSJ Link

Climate Research Unit describes how it could barely make ends meet for most of the years since it was founded in 1972, and how most researchers weren't even guaranteed salaries in the early years. "Since 1994, the situation has improved," CRU writes. Why 1994? That was the year the U.N.'s climate change convention came into force. Since then, it has been boom times for those lucky enough to have gotten in on the ground floor of a growth industry.

Michael Mann—another climate establishment figure whose name comes up frequently in the leaked emails—has helped pulled for Penn State University. In 2000, before Mr. Mann joined the faculty, the university banked $20.4 million in research funding for environmental sciences. By 2007, two years after he came on board, Penn State counted more than $55 million a year for environmental research, much of it government funded

To keep this money flowing, climate scientists needed to keep the fear going. Anything that called into question their most dire predictions of climate catastrophe would put all that funding at risk. On the other hand, the bigger the climate calamity, the more willing governments became to fund global-warming research. Keeping the dissenters on the outside was not simply a matter of academic jealousy. It was in many cases a question of professional survival.

The gusher of money that has flowed into climate research does not, by itself, impeach the conclusions reached by the scientists. But it does make clear just how much their professional fortunes became tied to the notion of climate catastrophe

[Highway6]

Many of the debates in this forum are fueled, at least in part, by differences in terminology.

I agree there.. but its not just this forum.

The controversy and theory isn't necessarily if the world is warming.... its by how much is it actually warming and by what % is the cause, man-made vs natural. ABC news had a poll up on Sunday's This Week comparing those that believe "Global Warming Occurring" now vs a year ago.

That's just guaranteed to get muddy results.

[TheNiche]

Many of the debates in this forum are fueled, at least in part, by differences in terminology. Some folks use the standard definition of global warming; i.e. - the indisputable fact that the earth is warming. Others evidently expand the definition to include "man-made", which hasn't been proven, and thus, in the minds of some, means global warming itself must be a hoax and those who believe the facts around global warming are "apologists". Perhaps that's why some of your posts in this thread failed to receive responses that were acceptable to you, despite the attempts of at least three different people to do so. Peace.

The varied underlying causes of the unacceptable discourse (as described in my preceding post) are irrelevant. I cannot improve the nature of the discourse except possibly with an inordinate expenditure of time and energy. This, I know from experience. Therefore I have withdrawn from it.

[Highway6]

Comic Relief time...

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=eScDfYzMEEw

[Highway6]

CRU is one of three main groups maintaining temperature data used by scientists all over the world. They have the largest of the three sets and it is the group most influencing the IPCC reports.

Toronto Sun link

The CRU at East Anglia University is considered by many as the world's leading climate research agency. Here's how CBSNews.com's Declan McCullagh describes its enormous impact on policymakers:

"In global warming circles, the CRU wields outsize influence: It claims the world's largest temperature data set, and its work and mathematical models were incorporated into the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 report. The report ... is what the Environmental Protection Agency acknowledged it 'relies on most heavily' when concluding carbon dioxide emissions endanger public health and should be regulated."

Link to Harry Read me .txt

One of the more damning leaked files...

The file -- 274 pages long -- describes the efforts of a climatologist/programmer at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia to update a huge statistical database (11,000 files) of important climate data between 2006 and 2009.

Includes such highlights as......

"But what are all those monthly files? DON'T KNOW, UNDOCUMENTED. Wherever I look, there are data files, no info about what they are other than their names. And that's useless ..." (Page 17)

- "It's botch after botch after botch." (18)

- "... this should all have been rewritten from scratch a year ago!" (45)

- "Am I the first person to attempt to get the CRU databases in working order?!!" (47)

- "As far as I can see, this renders the (weather) station counts totally meaningless." (57)

- "COBAR AIRPORT AWS (data from an Australian weather station) cannot start in 1962, it didn't open until 1993!" (71)

- "What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah -- there is no 'supposed,' I can make it up. So I have : - )" (98)

- "You can't imagine what this has cost me -- to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO (World Meteorological Organization) codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a 'Master' database of dubious provenance ..." (98)

- "So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option -- to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations ... In other words what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad ..." (98-9)

[jgriff]

And what could that nefarious agenda be? A clean planet?

Those bastards!

Here's three billion parts of the agenda Attica. This is just to support "short -term obligations".

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE5B04OT20091201?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true

[BryanS]

Well, that wouldn't be soooooo strange. Here is what will turn your mind into gelatin. I have actually seen a someone who claimed to be a Democrat that actually was a Socialist who hardly ever mentions the words Global Warming or Climate Change, although he truly enjoys the word "change". !!!

That's it TJones. You've crossed the line on this one. You leave Bob Ross out of this! No man on this earth can paint a log cabin mountain scene like this legend. "Ahh yes... just a little yella ochre...just like that... there we go... look at that... and now... a little happy cloud... and we'll give him a friend..."

And the man dies of a heart attack. Now that's IRONIC. Did you hear that Alanis Morissette?!

[AtticaFlinch]

So apparently, this group and these scientists involved in this email scandal are key contributors to the IPCC report and run one of the key models used by the report and others. "Oh, its only a few scientists.. that doesnt mean all scientists are bad"... Yah, that excuse is rapidly being flushed down the toilet.

Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). - Full link

Furthermore, programmers and other independent parties that have been pouring over some of the leaked data/code/reports. They've basically determined that the CRU's main model that the IPCC uses to estimate the costs of global warming is a joke. - Full link

No one thinks what these men did was ethical or right, but to suggest they beat the drums for an entire branch of science, no matter their individual level of influence, is silly. The fact remains, even despite their alleged misdeeds - corroborated only by bits and pieces of conversations taken out of context, plenty of other scientists using markedly different methods of measurements are reaching similar conclusions. One thing you'll note, if you choose to look deeply enough into the issue, is these men's scientific peers haven't objected to their conclusions per se, but rather their methodology. Of course, the logical next step is to cast doubt on their conclusions, because if their methodology is wrong, surely the conclusions are too... but why didn't they do that? Because, despite the bad science this handful of people supposedly did, their results matched that of thousands of other scientists in the world!

Unless... perhaps you're suggesting this conspiracy goes even deeper? Maybe it's the Freemasons or the Illuminati... molding their New World Order around wind turbines and solar panels.

Geez. Explaining science to people without science backgrounds is like explaining sex to a virgin.

I repeat:

You're confusing scientists and politicians. Scientists work with raw data and draw conclusions based on that data. If their conclusions lack merit and don't hold up under peer scrutiny, their conclusions are discarded. Science is apolitical to begin with. False paradigms have been developed based on individual political or social leanings, but gone are those days of the "gentleman" scientist using dubious methods to achieve those ends. Science has democratized, and bad ideas don't last long anymore.

[Highway6]

You're confusing scientists and politicians. Scientists work with raw data and draw conclusions based on that data. If their conclusions lack merit and don't hold up under peer scrutiny, their conclusions are discarded. Science is apolitical to begin with. False paradigms have been developed based on individual political or social leanings, but gone are those days of the "gentleman" scientist using dubious methods to achieve those ends. Science has democratized, and bad ideas don't last long anymore.

Your romanticized view on scientists is sad.

I know you won't read the following excerpt or the full link... but hopefully the non-sheeple will.

Why scientists lie...... Full link.

Why do scientists lie? In order of decreasing disingenuousness, the main motives are:

• Profit: Sometimes there's money in it -- a lot of money. This may be why, according to
  Fanelli's report
  , "surveys conducted among clinical, medical and pharmacological researchers appeared to yield higher rates of misconduct than surveys in other fields" [1].
  
  
• Laziness and ease of perpetration: It's so much easier to just make up data than to perform all those tedious measurements. And in most cases, no one is going to question you about it.
• Career pressure: This is the most common reason. The data isn't going your way and you may fail to get your thesis accepted, or not get tenure, or miss a promotion, or lose your grant or your job.
• Pride: Scientists are as hungry for praise and prestige as other mortals. And no one likes to be forced to admit he's wrong. So, when someone contradicts your earlier work, you may be willing to cut a few corners to defend yourself, or to prevent your opponent's paper from being published.
• Ideology: Many feel that if a cause is worth dying for, it's worth lying for. As we shall consider below, liberal intellectuals are particularly susceptible to this weakness.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To try to explain the CRU's primrose path, I must remind you that most scientists think of themselves as

intellectuals

, who, as the phrase "

trahison des clercs

" implies, are not above advancing themselves or their pet causes by doing a little lying. Moreover, most intellectuals are liberals, many of whom -- perhaps because of their lack of the moral restraint that religion imposes -- are willing to twist the truth for the sake of their ideology. The steps of this process go something like this:

• 1. Intellectual liberals believe that human beings are fundamentally good and that they are constantly evolving into something better. Moreover, they believe that intellectuals (i.e., themselves) are the best and wisest of humans and therefore the predestined leaders of mankind.
• 2. They also tend to believe that there are simple and drastic solutions to all of the world's problems. These solutions generally entail the creation of an all-powerful world government, staffed mainly with intellectuals.
• 3. Therefore, they tend to unquestioningly follow a charismatic leader who proposes sweeping reforms that will lead to a better world, with the intellectuals themselves in line for key positions.
• 4. They also tend to become bigots, in the Chestertonian sense of being unable to imagine any sane and honest person disagreeing with them. Therefore, all their opponents must be fools or liars. Moreover, the public -- the "common man" -- is a vast mob of idiots who must be manipulated for their own good.
• 5. Therefore, bending the truth a little so as to make it more blatantly obvious to the limited mentality of the public, or silencing the wrongheaded opposition so as not to confuse the simpleminded public, or crying "wolf" about a supposedly dire emergency so as to galvanize the lethargic public into immediate drastic action, are legitimate and even noble tactics.

[AtticaFlinch]

Holy crap, there's a whole 'nother page of responses. Well...

It gets old. Refuting an attack on a theory by pointing out observations doesn't prove anything. It makes those that do it look pretty dumb though.

Right, well actually while it's impossible to remove theory (philosophy) from science, science ultimately is simply the processing of observations into comprehendable conclusions. Apparently, science has failed you on the "comprehendable" part, though on a very basic level. It seems you've yet to comprehend the difference between science and philosophy. It's not possible to think your way to a consclusion about climate change. You can rationalize this as much as you want, but the science results are what they are. Those East Anglia scientists aren't the only ones getting those conclusions.

The error is mine for believing that I could productively debate you, when in fact I could no sooner debate with a Global Warming^TM apologist over the reliability or application of scientific interpretations of anthropogenic climate change or an appropriate policy response than I could a Mormon missionary over the reliability of Joseph Smith's writings. It is an error that I will not soon repeat.

This is about the most awesome thing you've ever done - using the logical fallacies inherent in the underpinnings of the Morman faith as an analogy to cast doubt on other people's methods of presenting their views. It's two insults for the price of one!

CRU is one of three main groups maintaining temperature data used by scientists all over the world. They have the largest of the three sets and it is the group most influencing the IPCC reports.

Again, while the IPCC may be driving the political debate, it does not drive the scientific debate. You need to understand the differences between scientists and politicians, or we'll never be able to move the debate beyond this point. Instead we'll get mired in petty name-calling and eventually we'll find ourselves sticking our tongues out at each other. Non-reviewed literature may be used for political purposes, but it isn't for scientific purposes. Blame the unethical scientists. Blame the politicians. Blame the media. (Really... blame these guys for their laziness - Climategate? Again with the -gate suffix? Every stupid political scandal gets stuck with that lazy suffix ever since Watergate because journalists are lazy and media outlets don't spend money on reporters who are experts in the fields on which they report.) Don't blame the science. The peer reviewed literature, of which undoubtably most of you have no access to and no idea the titles that deal with the various earth sciences, still reflect the conclusions that humans are indeed affecting the climate. All this despite what the actions of a few unethical scientists at an obscure university in Britain would have you believe.

By the way, the methodology used that was disputed by other scientists, and that East Anglia's profs fought so hard to validate, possibly unethically, is using tree rings in Siberian trees to gauge climate variations over the past hundred years or so. East Anglia says that's a valid method, and the disagreeing scientists didn't believe it since East Anglia had yet to publish peer reviewed material explaining how their methodology worked (apparently it's tied up in a PhD candidate's dissertation). That's it. It all boils down to that. Nothing more. Methodology, not the conclusions, are the dispute. The conclusions were matched by many other scientists using a host of varying methods.

[jgriff]

Attica: Here's some more of that agenda you were looking for. Did you really see no agenda here other than a concern for the environment? You really think all these people just have our best interests in mind? How trusting are you of the government? Were you this trusting when Bush was in office?

http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE5B13BK20091202

Some developing nations want as much as 1 percent of the wealth of better off peers, while rich countries and analysts estimate the climate cost to developing nations at between $100 billion and $300 billion annually by 2020.

[Highway6]

Right, well actually while it's impossible to remove theory (philosophy) from science, science ultimately is simply the processing of observations into comprehendable conclusions. Apparently, science has failed you on the "comprehendable" part, though on a very basic level.

It's simple attica.

If you understood science or even debate so well, You wouldn't retort with an observation "Icecaps are melting" as a response to someone attacking a theory "I don't believe that carbon emissions are the force behind the earth warming". Why? Because whether a theory is trying to explain WHY something is happening, or What is actually happening... both involve reason behind an observation. Just stating that something is happening is in no way a proper response to someone disagreeing with you on why something is happening.

You are talking around in circles trying to belittle those that disagree with you as ignorant in the ways of science.... and why... to cover your ass and to cover your attempt to BS a response by not actually responding. You even later admitted that the base observation doesnt prove the theory.

Then why the heck would you use it as a response to someone when they express doubt in the theory?

Let's try again...

Me: "Man-made global warming theory is a bunch of crap"

You: "Ice caps are melting.. and I guess I'm just imagining higher sea levels"

You: __________________( Try again) ________________________

Hint: Your response should definitely include references to "carbon emission levels" and possibly try refuting "solar cycles" for extra credit.

BIG EDIT:

Attica, It just occurred to me.. Somewhere along the way, I lumped you and Barracuda into the same opponent. Sorry, I was making fun of Cuda's previous attempt at an answer, not you..... But since you certainly took his shaky baton and ran with it, certainly feel free to jump in and do a better job answering for him.

[jgriff]

Again, while the IPCC may be driving the political debate, it does not drive the scientific debate. You need to understand the differences between scientists and politicians, or we'll never be able to move the debate beyond this point.

These scientists are bought and paid for by the government agencies of the world.

One of the leaked documents shows all the grants that Phil Jones has gotten since 1990. Here it is.

pdj_grant_since1990.xls

Edit: link failed

http://sentinelgetfit.kore-net.com/documents/pdj_grant_since1990.xls

[Highway6]

These scientists are bought and paid for by the government agencies of the world.

And attica... the governments of the world are corrupt.

http://www.cphpost.d...-co2-fraud.html

Link to the Copenhagen Post isn't currently working due, I'm sure, to the amount of traffic...

But when it starts working, You'll find that Denmark... the host country for the upcoming Climate Horah Gettogether... has been caught in a huge tax scam with their Cap-and Trade BS

Edit:

Found a secondary link...

http://web.me.com/si......Denmark.html

[Marksmu]

And attica... the governments of the world are corrupt.

http://www.cphpost.d...-co2-fraud.html

Link to the Copenhagen Post isn't currently working due, I'm sure, to the amount of traffic...

But when it starts working, You'll find that Denmark... the host country for the upcoming Climate Horah Gettogether... has been caught in a huge tax scam with their Cap-and Trade BS

Edit:

Found a secondary link...

http://web.me.com/si......Denmark.html

There is no such thing as man made global warming or man made climate change. We can destroy plenty of things on this planet but short of detonating nuclear weapons we cannot destroy the climate. Everything that is happening on this planet is a result of natural occurrences. That is just my opinion, nothing more, and the great part about that opinion is that there is not one single scientist or politician in the world who can prove it wrong.

I feel sorry for the people who believe in man made climate change....They took the bait hook line and sinker. Man made climate change is nothing more than a ploy to dethrone the United States as a world leader and spread its wealth to others. Its also on a smaller scale a way for the government to tax and control the companies that are in their respective countries. Is it one Giant conspiracy? Yes it is. The co-conspirators all have something different to gain though. The willing participant scientist, want money and respect, the other nations want money and power, and amazingly the only country in the world who stands to gain NOTHING is the US. Amazing! There is not a single positive aspect for only ONE country.

[AtticaFlinch]

Attica: Here's some more of that agenda you were looking for. Did you really see no agenda here other than a concern for the environment? You really think all these people just have our best interests in mind? How trusting are you of the government? Were you this trusting when Bush was in office?

http://www.reuters.c...E5B13BK20091202

I didn't say "all these people just have our best interests in mind." Stop putting words in my mouth. Again, you've confused politics and science. What does the science of climate change have to do with the government or George W Bush? Politics =/= Science. This debate has moved into Alice in Wonderland style absurdity. I should have stuck with my initial impulse and stayed out of this.

It's simple attica.

If you understood science or even debate so well, You wouldn't retort with an observation "Icecaps are melting" as a response to someone attacking a theory "I don't believe that carbon emissions are the force behind the earth warming". Why? Because whether a theory is trying to explain WHY something is happening, or What is actually happening... both involve reason behind an observation. Just stating that something is happening is in no way a proper response to someone disagreeing with you on why something is happening.

You are talking around in circles trying to belittle those that disagree with you as ignorant in the ways of science.... and why... to cover your ass and to cover your attempt to BS a response by not actually responding. You even later admitted that the base observation doesnt prove the theory.

Then why the heck would you use it as a response to someone when they express doubt in the theory?

Let's try again...

Me: "Man-made global warming theory is a bunch of crap"

You: "Ice caps are melting.. and I guess I'm just imagining higher sea levels"

You: __________________( Try again) ________________________

Hint: Your response should definitely include references to "carbon emission levels" and possibly try refuting "solar cycles" for extra credit.

I challenge you to find a single instance where I used "the icecaps are melting" in response to anything on this thread, unless you tilt your head, squint your eyes and blatantly misread a comment where I used it as an example of your and many other people's intermittant (when convenient) incredulity. However, I have noticed a number of times where you've drawn illogical conclusions from unrelated events (ie. some scientists lied, therefore all scientists lie!), but not once have I mentioned icecaps alone as any response. Not once. Try again. Before you accuse others of logical fallacies and a lack of understanding, first remove the log from your own eye.

By the way, as for the idea of logical fallacies, the words you guys have been putting into my mouth (and then easily refuting) are examples of strawmen, and this entire East Anglia thing is a primo example of a red herring. Again, Before you accuse others of logical fallacies and a lack of understanding, first remove the log from your own eye.

These scientists are bought and paid for by the government agencies of the world.

One of the leaked documents shows all the grants that Phil Jones has gotten since 1990. Here it is.

pdj_grant_since1990.xls

Edit: link failed

http://sentinelgetfi...t_since1990.xls

So what? Are scientists supposed to work for free? I don't understand the point you're making. Is this again going back to that tired teleological argument that since a person makes money from their research, you can't trust the veracity of their data?

[Highway6]

I challenge you to find a single instance where I used "the icecaps are melting" in response to anything on this thread

If You look back at my post to which you just responded.... you'll notice I already put a big disclaimer 18 minutes ago apologizing for getting you and Cuda mixed up.

[AtticaFlinch]

There is no such thing as man made global warming or man made climate change. We can destroy plenty of things on this planet but short of detonating nuclear weapons we cannot destroy the climate. Everything that is happening on this planet is a result of natural occurrences. That is just my opinion, nothing more, and the great part about that opinion is that there is not one single scientist or politician in the world who can prove it wrong.

What?! This is a joke, right?

I believe the sky is actually orange marmalade, rainbows taste like Skittles and clouds are made of cotton candy, and you can't prove me wrong because, hey... it's my opinion.

[AtticaFlinch]

If You look back at my post to which you just responded.... you'll notice I already put a big disclaimer 18 minutes ago apologizing for getting you and Cuda mixed up.

Had the response screen open for awhile. I'm actually getting some work done today! Either the economy is on an upswing or businesses are nearing the end of their fiscal year and looking to dump some money to take advantage of tax incentives. Either way, I'll take it. The last two months have seen the biggest drought I've seen in all of 2009, and I could use the cash infusion this month will bring.

[jgriff]

I didn't say "all these people just have our best interests in mind." Stop putting words in my mouth. Again, you've confused politics and science. What does the science of climate change have to do with the government or George W Bush? Politics =/= Science. This debate has moved into Alice in Wonderland style absurdity. I should have stuck with my initial impulse and stayed out of this.

So what? Are scientists supposed to work for free? I don't understand the point you're making. Is this again going back to that tired teleological argument that since a person makes money from their research, you can't trust the veracity of their data?

I'm not putting words in your mouth.

AtticaFlinch:

And what could that nefarious agenda be? A clean planet?

Those bastards!

You are implying that there is no other agenda other than a clean planet. Isn't a clean planet in our best interest?

You asked what the agenda was and I answered you.

You claim that everyone is mixing up politicians and scientists. You are wrong. We know the difference. We also know that scientists can have a political agenda. The political agenda that the UN pushes on almost every issue makes them suspect. The CRU scientists are closely associated with the UN and the IPCC. When you are as closely allied with a political institution as they are then you cannot claim to be politicaly independent.

Since you don't care where funding comes from I assume that you would trust any report by scientists funded by ExxonMobil. Is that correct?

[AtticaFlinch]

"The earth is warming" is not the theory. The theory states a guess ( carbon emissions ) as to the cause and degree of the earth warming.

"Observing glaciers melting" ....is not a tangible example of.... "carbon emissions cause the earth to warm"

The controversy and theory isn't necessarily if the world is warming.... its by how much is it actually warming and by what % is the cause, man-made vs natural.

I just noticed these posts. Had you been saying this all along, we probably wouldn't have had anything to debate. However, I would like to correct your use of the word "theory" in your first quote as it should actually read "hypothesis."

[AtticaFlinch]

I'm not putting words in your mouth.

AtticaFlinch:

And what could that nefarious agenda be? A clean planet?

Those bastards!

You are implying that there is no other agenda other than a clean planet. Isn't a clean planet in our best interest?

You asked what the agenda was and I answered you.

You claim that everyone is mixing up politicians and scientists. You are wrong. We know the difference. We also know that scientists can have a political agenda. The political agenda that the UN pushes on almost every issue makes them suspect. The CRU scientists are closely associated with the UN and the IPCC. When you are as closely allied with a political institution as they are then you cannot claim to be politicaly independent.

Ok, perhaps I'm going crazy, but I do believe you wrote this:

"Attica: Here's some more of that agenda you were looking for. Did you really see no agenda here other than a concern for the environment? You really think all these people just have our best interests in mind? How trusting are you of the government? Were you this trusting when Bush was in office?"

You took it a point beyond answering my question. You answered my question with a broken link, then set up not one, but three, strawmen to cast doubt onto the legitimacy of my position. To answer your strawmen and steer this back on track, I never said I thought all scientists have our best interests in mind, I'm no more trusting/distrusting of the government than any other rational man (but what this has to do with the scientific debate is still beyond me), and Bush has virtually nothing to do with the science of climate change except that he, a science-hatin' Bible-thumper, even acknowledged the evidence is overwhelming in implicating an as to yet undetermined level of human culpability.

But, perhaps you should reread the posts I've made to clarify my position on this in your mind. I'm defending science and the scientific process, and I'm doing my best to stay away from discussing the political implications of climate change (and in fact was only delving into that with Niche). I said very early on the point is to mitigate the damage done, not to reverse the process. But, before that can be done, the problem must be acknowledged. I wasn't addressing the hows or the whys or the costs of the next steps. Hell, I even made it a point to admit assessing that is near impossible. There are too many absolutes and variances in ideologies to even discern how that conversation should begin.

Since you don't care where funding comes from I assume that you would trust any report by scientists funded by ExxonMobil. Is that correct?

Strawman.

It seems you're suggesting I should trust them more than anyone getting government funding. Is that correct?

These scientists are bought and paid for by the government agencies of the world.

[Marksmu]

What?! This is a joke, right?

I believe the sky is actually orange marmalade, rainbows taste like Skittles and clouds are made of cotton candy, and you can't prove me wrong because, hey... it's my opinion.

Of course its a joke. I laughed pretty hard when I wrote it just anticipating the responses.

However, as an aside, I dont believe there is man made global warming.

[jgriff]

Strawman.

Ahh... the old strawman comes out. The last refuge of those that have lost an argument. It seems like that is the new popular thing to say on forums these days.

The fact remains... you asked what agenda would they have. I answered.

You implied that there was no agenda other than a clean planet as follows...

And what could that nefarious agenda be? A clean planet?

Those bastards!

I showed what the agenda is.

The fact remains.... you implied that the funding of a scientist has no bearing on it's legitimacy as follows.

So what? Are scientists supposed to work for free? I don't understand the point you're making. Is this again going back to that tired teleological argument that since a person makes money from their research, you can't trust the veracity of their data?

I asked you a simple question. If a study was funded by ExxonMobil would you trust it? Instead of answering you pull out that tired old strawman non-answer.

The broken link was fixed about 10 seconds after I posted it.

[AtticaFlinch]

Ahh... the old strawman comes out. The last refuge of those that have lost an argument. It seems like that is the new popular thing to say on forums these days.

Oh, whatever... Using the strawman is the first refuge of those who have no idea what the hell they're talking about in the first place. Strawman is a popular defense these days because so many people, like yourself, have no idea how to rationally present your points. If you'd like to call it something else, perhaps in some kind of secret code between just you and me, then we can do that. I don't have to continue to embarass you if you'd prefer. I tell you what, from here on out, when you pull these strawmen out from the hay pile, I'll call it "acting like a jackgriff," as in, "Hey jgriff, stop acting like a jackgriff." That work for you?

The fact remains... you asked what agenda would they have. I answered.

You implied that there was no agenda other than a clean planet as follows...

I showed what the agenda is.

Identifying the possible agenda of a small sample doesn't represent the entire body of evidence. Why can't you grasp that simple fact? Why?

The fact remains.... you implied that the funding of a scientist has no bearing on it's legitimacy as follows.

I asked you a simple question. If a study was funded by ExxonMobil would you trust it? Instead of answering you pull out that tired old strawman non-answer.

You're a really quick study.

So you know, when I don't answer your question, it's not because I'm avoiding it. Really, I think I've made more than clear my take on this and I think it should be fairly obvious where I stand. But, let me spell it out for you so I can finally demystify my intent. If the science holds up under peer review, I couldn't care less who funds the study. Science ain't exactly the career path to choose if you want to be rich, and it's in fact very difficult for many institutions to keep their doors open. If a scientist or institution takes money from Exxon or PETA or Domino's Pizza, I couldn't care less. The material produced by the scientist is what matters, and if the data is skewed for whatever reason, that truth will eventually come out.

The broken link was fixed about 10 seconds after I posted it.

Whatever. I don't tend to revisit your posts.

Edit: And on this note, I really am bowing out of this thread for good. I should have pulled a Niche much earlier.

[BryanS]

Oh, whatever... Using the strawman is the first refuge of those who have no idea what the hell they're talking about in the first place. Strawman is a popular defense these days because so many people, like yourself, have no idea how to rationally present your points. If you'd like to call it something else, perhaps in some kind of secret code between just you and me, then we can do that. I don't have to continue to embarass you if you'd prefer. I tell you what, from here on out, when you pull these strawmen out from the hay pile, I'll call it "acting like a jackgriff," as in, "Hey jgriff, stop acting like a jackgriff." That work for you?

Identifying the possible agenda of a small sample doesn't represent the entire body of evidence. Why can't you grasp that simple fact? Why?

You're a really quick study.

So you know, when I don't answer your question, it's not because I'm avoiding it. Really, I think I've made more than clear my take on this and I think it should be fairly obvious where I stand. But, let me spell it out for you so I can finally demystify my intent. If the science holds up under peer review, I couldn't care less who funds the study. Science ain't exactly the career path to choose if you want to be rich, and it's in fact very difficult for many institutions to keep their doors open. If a scientist or institution takes money from Exxon or PETA or Domino's Pizza, I couldn't care less. The material produced by the scientist is what matters, and if the data is skewed for whatever reason, that truth will eventually come out.

Whatever. I don't tend to revisit your posts.

Edit: And on this note, I really am bowing out of this thread for good. I should have pulled a Niche much earlier.

I tried to warn you.

[barracuda]

I had to do it.

Your romanticized view on scientists is sad.

I know you won't read the following excerpt or the full link... but hopefully the non-sheeple will.

Why do scientists human beings lie? In order of decreasing disingenuousness, the main motives are:

* Profit: Sometimes there's money in it -- a lot of money. This may be why, according to Fanelli's report, "surveys conducted among clinical, medical and pharmacological researchers appeared to yield higher rates of misconduct than surveys in other fields" [1].

* Laziness and ease of perpetration: It's so much easier to just make up data than to perform all those tedious measurements. And in most cases, no one is going to question you about it.

* Career pressure: This is the most common reason. The data isn't going your way and you may fail to get your thesis accepted, or not get tenure, or miss a promotion, or lose your grant or your job.

* Pride: Scientists are as hungry for praise and prestige as other mortals. And no one likes to be forced to admit he's wrong. So, when someone contradicts your earlier work, you may be willing to cut a few corners to defend yourself, or to prevent your opponent's paper from being published.

* Ideology: Many feel that if a cause is worth dying for, it's worth lying for. As we shall consider below, liberal intellectuals are particularly susceptible to this weakness.

To try to explain the CRU's primrose path, I must remind you that most scientists think of themselves as intellectuals, who, as the phrase "trahison des clercs" implies, are not above advancing themselves or their pet causes by doing a little lying. Moreover, most intellectuals are liberals, many of whom -- perhaps because of their lack of the moral restraint that religion imposes -- are willing to twist the truth for the sake of their ideology. The steps of this process go something like this:

* 1. Intellectual liberals believe that human beings are fundamentally good and that they are constantly evolving into something better. Moreover, they believe that intellectuals (i.e., themselves) are the best and wisest of humans and therefore the predestined leaders of mankind.

* 2. They also tend to believe that there are simple and drastic solutions to all of the world's problems. These solutions generally entail the creation of an all-powerful world government, staffed mainly with intellectuals.

* 3. Therefore, they tend to unquestioningly follow a charismatic leader who proposes sweeping reforms that will lead to a better world, with the intellectuals themselves in line for key positions.

* 4. They also tend to become bigots, in the Chestertonian sense of being unable to imagine any sane and honest person disagreeing with them. Therefore, all their opponents must be fools or liars. Moreover, the public -- the "common man" -- is a vast mob of idiots who must be manipulated for their own good.

* 5. Therefore, bending the truth a little so as to make it more blatantly obvious to the limited mentality of the public, or silencing the wrongheaded opposition so as not to confuse the simpleminded public, or crying "wolf" about a supposedly dire emergency so as to galvanize the lethargic public into immediate drastic action, are legitimate and even noble tactics.

* 1. Conservatives believe that human beings are fundamentally bad and that they are constantly evolving into something better unless they are christians. Moreover, they believe that conservatives (i.e., themselves) are the best and wisest of humans and therefore the predestined leaders of mankind christians.

* 2. They also tend to believe that there are simple and drastic solutions to all of the world's problems. These solutions generally entail the elimination of an all-powerful world government staffed mainly with conservatives.

* 3. Therefore, they tend to unquestioningly follow a charismatic leader (Ronald Reagan) who proposed sweeping reforms that will lead to a better world for rich and powerful conservatives, with the conservatives themselves in line for key positions (in an airport bathroom stall, at a house of worship, with congressional interns).

* 4. They also tend to become bigots, in the Chestertonian sense of being unable to imagine any sane and honest person disagreeing with them. Therefore, all their opponents must be fools or liars (to be ridiculed by Limbaugh, Palin, O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, Malkin, Drudge, and many others). Moreover, the public -- the "common man" -- is a vast mob of idiots who must be manipulated for their own good the good of the rich and powerful conservatives who turn the common foolish man against his own best interests and then lie right to his face.

* 5. Therefore, bending the truth a little so as to make it more blatantly obvious to the limited mentality of the public (see WMD and Iraq war), or silencing the wrongheaded opposition so as not to confuse the simpleminded public (calling them un-American and shutting off their mic), or crying "wolf" about a supposedly dire emergency so as to galvanize the lethargic public into immediate drastic action (like rushing to preemptively invade Iraq), are legitimate and even noble tactics.

[Highway6]

I had to do it.

Why do scientists human beings lie?

So...are you now implying that scientists are exempt from lying because they are not human beings ??

Because unless that is what you are implying, then you are accepting the fact that those 5 reasons do in fact still hold true for scientists. ....which means you accomplished nothing by your cute little edit.