Global Warming - Reality or Myth?

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by mr3856a

I have no idea even what I'm alleged to have agreed with, much less where. Could you show me the post you're referring to in which I agree with an argument you're making? I'm lost here.

I told you where it is, you find it.... this thread back in April of 2008. I found it to post the quote.... your turn. (Edit: your post #187)

Originally Posted by mr3856a

How do you support the claim that there is little evidence to support global warming?

Good grief!! You really don't read what you're replying to, do you? Show me where I EVER said that there is no such thing as global climate change. You can't do it because I didn't say anything of the kind.

Originally Posted by mr3856a

And you absolutely did state that the reason you don't buy is it because "the pundits are almost exclusively disciples of the liberal education system". If that's not what you meant, you are free to retract it. I simply stated to you that there really isn't any debate in the scientific and academic community that global warming is happening, and that every scientist I've heard about who denies it is funded by either an oil company or conservative interest group. You responded essentially that all the academics were liberal, which, aside from not being true, is irrelevant so long as they aren't funded by PETA or Greenpeace.

I said, and for the last time, that I don't buy the liberal assertion that human activity is a significant contributing factor to global climate change. I also don't buy the extreme conservative assertion that human activity has no effect whatsoever on global climate change. I have ALWAYS said that climate change is a fact of nature and there is not enough evidence to rule one way or the other on the effect of man's involvement. Climate change is a natural phenomenon that has been occurring since geologic times, and you cant make offhand predictions based on 30 or 40 years of data. Is that clear enough??????????

[JungleJ]

Originally Posted by Ty_Webb

If they turn around and say "there's nothing to see here, please disburse" what's going to happen to their funding?

That might be one of the better puns I've seen on GRW...

[Leaguegolf]

Originally Posted by JungleJ

That might be one of the better puns I've seen on GRW...

Very clever JungleJ.

[JungleJ]

Again, what I undestand about the dreaded emails is that the anti crowd is making a lot more out of them then is really there. Not only that, they're from a single research unit associated with a single university in England. Hardly the sweeping, damning evidence they're being made out to be.

Knowledgeable, are we?

Here are a few snippets from wikipedia about the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia:

The Climatic Research Unit (CRU) is a component of the University of East Anglia and is one of the leading institutions concerned with the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change.It has around thirty research scientists and students and has developed a number of the data sets widely used in climate research, including the global temperature record used to monitor the state of the climate system, as well as statistical software packages and climate models.

One of the CRU's most significant products is the global near-surface temperature record compiled in conjunction with the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research. First compiled in the early 1980s, the record documents global temperature fluctuations since the 1850s. The CRU compiles the land component of the record and the Hadley Centre provides the marine component. The merged record is used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in all its publications.

I added the italics in the above quote.

So the CRU is not "a single research unit associated with a single university in England". It is one of the most significant climate data providers in the world. So to find that (a) researchers there *may* have been cooking the numbers; (b) previously published reports could not be reproduced from the underlying data; and (c) that CRU scientists (among others) seemed to be colluding to prevent AGW-sceptics from having their papers published in peer-reviewed (and therefore more credible) scientific journals; is a dent in the credibility of the AGW science.

For some time the AGW brigade has been claiming that "the science is settled". Until the "science" can pass the test of the scientific method, it cannot be settled.

[mr3856a]

Originally Posted by Ty_Webb

Richard Lindzen.

Ok. From a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine:

Lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC.

Lindzen also argues that cigarette smoking is only weakly linked to lung cancer.

Originally Posted by Ty_Webb

Oh, and this too: List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ok, just to prove this point, the first guy on this list: Timothy F. Ball, now former head of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project. From an article in the Toronto Star:

According to Harris [the head of the group before Ball], the idea behind the project came from Timothy Egan, President of the High Park Group, a Toronto-based lobby organization. Harris is the former head of its Ottawa office. The federal Lobbyists Registration System indicates that High Park's clients include the Canadian Electricity Association and the Canadian Gas Association.

See what I mean?

[mr3856a]

Originally Posted by JungleJ

So the CRU is not "a single research unit associated with a single university in England". It is one of the most significant climate data providers in the world. So to find that (a) researchers there *may* have been cooking the numbers; (b) previously published reports could not be reproduced from the underlying data; and (c) that CRU scientists (among others) seemed to be colluding to prevent AGW-sceptics from having their papers published in peer-reviewed (and therefore more credible) scientific journals; is a dent in the credibility of the AGW science.

All of this needs to be investigated thoroughly, and to my knowledge it is being investigated.

[Ty_Webb]

Originally Posted by mr3856a

Ok. From a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine:

He denies that. I assume you found it on his wikipedia article, so you would know that and would have also read that he received some funding in the 90s from fossil-fuel types, but none since.

Originally Posted by mr3856a

Lindzen also argues that cigarette smoking is only weakly linked to lung cancer.

So?

Originally Posted by mr3856a

Ok, just to prove this point, the first guy on this list: Timothy F. Ball, now former head of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project. From an article in the Toronto Star:

You have proved no such thing. You said "all" AGW sceptics are in the pockets of the oil companies, so by my count to prove your statement, you need to go through every one of those scientists on the list and show that they are receiving funding from oil companies.

Originally Posted by mr3856a

See what I mean?

No. I don't. You are a long way short of showing what you're claiming. Once you've done that, you can then get on to why that proves that they're lying in any case.

[mr3856a]

Originally Posted by Ty_Webb

You have proved no such thing. You said "all" AGW sceptics are in the pockets of the oil companies, so by my count to prove your statement, you need to go through every one of those scientists on the list and show that they are receiving funding from oil companies.

I believe what I said was that every denier scientist shown to me has been in the pocket of big oil or conservative political groups. Despite your protestations to the contrary I'm batting 1.000 on that one.

Originally Posted by Ty_Webb

No. I don't.

Well then you don't want to, rendering this discussion pointless.

[Ty_Webb]

Originally Posted by mr3856a

I believe what I said was that every denier scientist shown to me has been in the pocket of big oil or conservative political groups. Despite your protestations to the contrary I'm batting 1.000 on that one.



Well then you don't want to, rendering this discussion pointless.

I gave you a list of several scientists on that wikipedia page. So you've been shown a very long list. You seem to think that showing that one of them was in the pocket of big oil or conservative political groups proves that all of them were. That's obviously false, so you're not at 1.000 on that one. There are 42 of them, so by my count you're at 0.024 on that one (or 0.048 if we give you Lindzen as well, although $10,000 15 years ago is hardly the same thing as the insinuation that they're all just saying it because they have a vested interest in it).

In any case, you said "if you can find me a mainstream, respected scientist with no ties to big oil or the conservative right who denies climate change is happening, it will be the first time."

Richard Lindzen has no ties to the conservative right or big oil. He had ties 15 years ago, but he doesn't now. He is a professor of meteorology at MIT, so I imagine meets your mainstream well-respected requirement. So your point has been met.

[mr3856a]

Originally Posted by Ty_Webb

I gave you a list of several scientists on that wikipedia page. So you've been shown a very long list. You seem to think that showing that one of them was in the pocket of big oil or conservative political groups proves that all of them were. That's obviously false, so you're not at 1.000 on that one. There are 42 of them, so by my count you're at 0.024 on that one (or 0.048 if we give you Lindzen as well, although $10,000 15 years ago is hardly the same thing as the insinuation that they're all just saying it because they have a vested interest in it).

In any case, you said "if you can find me a mainstream, respected scientist with no ties to big oil or the conservative right who denies climate change is happening, it will be the first time."

Ok, let's move on to number 2 on the list, Robert M. Carter. It's now 1:46, I bet I'll have a conservative/energy tie-in in about... 3 minutes, over/under.

*back*

Ok, that literally took one minute:

[H]e is on the research committee of the Institute of Public Affairs, a right-wing group that has received funding from corporate interests including oil and tobacco companies.

Ok, let's try number 3. Clock says, 1:49. Go!

Vincent R. Gray - "retired coal industry researcher" (It's hype, hysteria and hot air says climate change nay-sayers - National - NZ Herald News)

Man, that took 7 minutes. Missed my over/under.

Three for 3...

Originally Posted by Ty_Webb

Richard Lindzen has no ties to the conservative right or big oil. He had ties 15 years ago, but he doesn't now. He is a professor of meteorology at MIT, so I imagine meets your mainstream well-respected requirement. So your point has been met.

Ahem, Mr. Lindzen has plenty of ties to the conservative right:

Lindzen has contributed to think tanks including the Cato Institute and the George C. Marshall Institute.

And he had ties to big oil, whether you like it or not.

[Ty_Webb]

Originally Posted by mr3856a

Ok, let's move on to number 2 on the list, Robert M. Carter. It's now 1:46, I bet I'll have a conservative/energy tie-in in about... 3 minutes, over/under.

*back*

Ok, that literally took one minute:



Ok, let's try number 3. Clock says, 1:49. Go!

Vincent R. Gray - "retired coal industry researcher" (It's hype, hysteria and hot air says climate change nay-sayers - National - NZ Herald News)

Man, that took 7 minutes. Missed my over/under.

Three for 3...



Ahem, Mr. Lindzen has plenty of ties to the conservative right:



And he had ties to big oil, whether you like it or not.

Time for a moment of honesty. I suspect that you're right and I have been playing devil's advocate, because it's more fun. To clarify on my position, I suspect that the "consensus" is correct, but I differ on my opinion as to how to deal with it. My basic thoughts are we can't do anything about it anyway, so why bother trying?

In any case, this morning, I discovered this: Petition. It's a petition that's been signed by over 31,000 scientists in the US, basically saying that the case for AGW has been overstated. I find it hard to believe that all of them are funded by oil companies and/or the conservative right. It also wouldn't surprise me to discover that a chunk of them are scientists in a totally unrelated field who think kind of like I do. In any case, I'd bet $1 that someone in there is a climatologist with no ties to the oil industry or the conservative right.

[Texas Wedge]

Climategate: Gore falsifies the record | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

Just another right-wing nutball oil-paid scumball pointing out the Goracle's "misinterpreted" comments that he foolishly thinks are untrue.
(I thought I'd get the bashing starting, since I'm sure it won't take long)

[Texas Wedge]

Originally Posted by Ty_Webb

Time for a moment of honesty. I suspect that you're right and I have been playing devil's advocate, because it's more fun. To clarify on my position, I suspect that the "consensus" is correct, but I differ on my opinion as to how to deal with it. My basic thoughts are we can't do anything about it anyway, so why bother trying?

In any case, this morning, I discovered this: Petition. It's a petition that's been signed by over 31,000 scientists in the US, basically saying that the case for AGW has been overstated. I find it hard to believe that all of them are funded by oil companies and/or the conservative right. It also wouldn't surprise me to discover that a chunk of them are scientists in a totally unrelated field who think kind of like I do. In any case, I'd bet $1 that someone in there is a climatologist with no ties to the oil industry or the conservative right.

At 3 minutes each, that's going to keep SOMEONE very busy...

[Leaguegolf]

Originally Posted by Texas Wedge

At 3 minutes each, that's going to keep SOMEONE very busy...

Do you think he'll take the bait? .....

[mr3856a]

Originally Posted by Ty_Webb

Time for a moment of honesty. I suspect that you're right and I have been playing devil's advocate, because it's more fun. To clarify on my position, I suspect that the "consensus" is correct, but I differ on my opinion as to how to deal with it. My basic thoughts are we can't do anything about it anyway, so why bother trying?

In any case, this morning, I discovered this: Petition. It's a petition that's been signed by over 31,000 scientists in the US, basically saying that the case for AGW has been overstated. I find it hard to believe that all of them are funded by oil companies and/or the conservative right. It also wouldn't surprise me to discover that a chunk of them are scientists in a totally unrelated field who think kind of like I do. In any case, I'd bet $1 that someone in there is a climatologist with no ties to the oil industry or the conservative right.

You'd probably win that bet.

[mr3856a]

Originally Posted by Texas Wedge

Climategate: Gore falsifies the record | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

Just another right-wing nutball oil-paid scumball pointing out the Goracle's "misinterpreted" comments that he foolishly thinks are untrue.
(I thought I'd get the bashing starting, since I'm sure it won't take long)

Nobody's making ad hominem attacks on any of these people, just pointing out where their loyalties lie. Nothing like trying to exaggerate a position you don't agree with to try and make it seem like something it isn't, right?

And by the way, who on earth is Andrew Bolt? If I'm not going to be impressed by an oil industry "climatologist," I'm certainly not going to be moved by some random blogger.

[Texas Wedge]

Daily Express | UK News :: Climate change is natural: 100 reasons why

Fun article...at least it will be for some.

[Wazmankg]

Originally Posted by Texas Wedge

Daily Express | UK News :: Climate change is natural: 100 reasons why

Fun article...at least it will be for some.

So what was that ? A letter to the editor ? Blog ? It's hard to tell, but an opinion piece certainly.

[Texas Wedge]

Originally Posted by Wazmankg

So what was that ? A letter to the editor ? Blog ? It's hard to tell, but an opinion piece certainly.

Pretty much...that's the way I took it...as an opinion piece.

I just like seeing Mr####s rant about those of us who don't think the world will end soon in a fiery ball.

[mr3856a]

Originally Posted by Texas Wedge

Pretty much...that's the way I took it...as an opinion piece.

I just like seeing Mr####s rant about those of us who don't think the world will end soon in a fiery ball.

Like I said before:

Originally Posted by mr3856a

Nothing like trying to exaggerate a position you don't agree with to try and make it seem like something it isn't, right?

[Texas Wedge]

Originally Posted by mr3856a

Like I said before:

Nothing like trying to exaggerate a position you don't agree with to try and make it seem like something it isn't, right?

Or one can take the 3856 way and just attack the people whose position you disagree with in an effort to discredit them, rather than their scientific conclusions. Everyone knows that the only scientists who know anything about anything are the ones who agree that global warming is going cause the planet to explode any time now.

[mr3856a]

Originally Posted by Texas Wedge

Or one can take the 3856 way and just attack the people whose position you disagree with in an effort to discredit them, rather than their scientific conclusions. Everyone knows that the only scientists who know anything about anything are the ones who agree that global warming is going cause the planet to explode any time now.

Jeeze, are you just not paying attention at all?

Originally Posted by mr3856a

Nobody's making ad hominem attacks on any of these people, just pointing out where their loyalties lie. Nothing like trying to exaggerate a position you don't agree with to try and make it seem like something it isn't, right?

[Blue_Arc]

Man it won't stop raining in San Diego. I think we got half of our annual rainfall in 5 days. We have mud slides and flash flood warnings and we even had a tornado watch! SD river's supposed to flood Fashion Valley and all the stores latter today. But that's not the worst. The River Walk golf course is right in the middle of it. All the water hazards were built out of the river. It's terrible I tell you. It's El Nino! I't's global warming! Someone make it stop!