http://gamingtrend.com
October 21, 2014, 04:26:28 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Liberal Ice Shelf continues to show how much it hates Bush  (Read 14286 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Turtle
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9417



View Profile WWW
« Reply #80 on: July 23, 2008, 03:02:04 AM »

The key question you must ask yourself is this:  What would it take to convince you otherwise?  What evidence could be shown to convince you, assuming it's from reputable sources.  And what will you do when you see that evidence?

I recommend this site:
http://herebedragonsmovie.com/

It's an introduction to critical thinking and skeptcism that in no way steps on your religious beliefs.
Logged
Ironrod
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3402



View Profile WWW
« Reply #81 on: July 23, 2008, 02:18:47 PM »

Quote from: Brendan on July 22, 2008, 09:13:45 PM


As Ironrod elliptically points out, it's just science-like slight-of-hand to fool people without the inclination or ability to delve into the topic.  Pretty charts don't make something true.  If they did, I can dig up plenty of flat earth tracts, moon landing hoaxes, and other wonders for you to peruse credulously.


To put it more plainly: "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit".
Logged

Curio City Online - Weird stuff you can buy
Curious Business - The Curio City Blog
brettmcd
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1355


View Profile
« Reply #82 on: July 23, 2008, 05:35:22 PM »

Quote from: Ironrod on July 23, 2008, 02:18:47 PM

Quote from: Brendan on July 22, 2008, 09:13:45 PM


As Ironrod elliptically points out, it's just science-like slight-of-hand to fool people without the inclination or ability to delve into the topic.  Pretty charts don't make something true.  If they did, I can dig up plenty of flat earth tracts, moon landing hoaxes, and other wonders for you to peruse credulously.


To put it more plainly: "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit".

Thank you for explaining how a vast majority of the websites that support the theory of man made global warming work.   That makes things much clearer now to everyone.
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #83 on: July 23, 2008, 06:28:39 PM »

Please illuminate us with your credentials, brettmcd, so that we can assess your claim.  From which university did you receive your PhD in climatology?  In which journals is your research published?

I guess I'm not going to get a response to my question about why anyone would perpetrate such a hoax?
Logged
Captain Caveman
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1339


View Profile
« Reply #84 on: July 23, 2008, 07:15:51 PM »

Quote from: Brendan on July 23, 2008, 06:28:39 PM

Please illuminate us with your credentials, brettmcd, so that we can assess your claim.  From which university did you receive your PhD in climatology?  In which journals is your research published?

I guess I'm not going to get a response to my question about why anyone would perpetrate such a hoax?

From what I gather, the argument goes something like this: it's all part of the socialist liberal agenda to: 1) fleece the American taxpayer by funneling money to the university elitists conducting the "research" (i.e., they have a financial self-interest to convince others that climate change is real in order to keep the grant money flowin'), 2) promote environmental causes at the expense of industry and the economy, and 3) interfere in the marketplace by unduly hindering corporations with socialist regulatory practices. Perhaps worst of all, they then indoctrinate our impressionable children with these anti-American ideas as they attend our universities, thereby causing gay people to marry.
Logged
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


View Profile
« Reply #85 on: July 24, 2008, 03:44:07 AM »

I don't understand why y'all are attacking brettmcd here (ok well I do understand, considering this forum, but I digress).

There are a buttload (technical term) of scientists out there who either say the globe isn't warming, that the globe is warming but it's not man-made, that things aren't conclusive, or that it's a good thing. You want to be condescending towards brettmcd and question his credentials? Go right ahead. And don't forget to do the same with all these people as well.
Logged
Ironrod
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3402



View Profile WWW
« Reply #86 on: July 24, 2008, 04:46:13 AM »

Quote from: brettmcd on July 23, 2008, 05:35:22 PM

Quote from: Ironrod on July 23, 2008, 02:18:47 PM

Quote from: Brendan on July 22, 2008, 09:13:45 PM


As Ironrod elliptically points out, it's just science-like slight-of-hand to fool people without the inclination or ability to delve into the topic.  Pretty charts don't make something true.  If they did, I can dig up plenty of flat earth tracts, moon landing hoaxes, and other wonders for you to peruse credulously.


To put it more plainly: "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit".

Thank you for explaining how a vast majority of the websites that support the theory of man made global warming work.   That makes things much clearer now to everyone.

You have a valid point. I don't understand most of the nitty-gritty science, so I have to trust intermediaries to explain it. Our biases determine which media sources we trust, and those sources reinforce our biases. Science News has been my trusted interpreter for 35 years. They probably aren't yours.

Quote from: cheeba on July 24, 2008, 03:44:07 AM

You want to be condescending towards brettmcd and question his credentials? Go right ahead. And don't forget to do the same with all these people as well.

I can't naysay them without going into dueling sources, which seldom convinces anybody of anything. I tipped into the Believer camp a couple of years ago based on the preponderance of evidence among the media that I read. I can't support that conclusion first-hand, but the sources that I believe are pretty clear on it.

Aren't most of us at the mercy of dueling sources? Unless you have some solid direct knowledge, there is still room for uncertainty -- on both sides.
Logged

Curio City Online - Weird stuff you can buy
Curious Business - The Curio City Blog
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


View Profile
« Reply #87 on: July 24, 2008, 05:43:30 AM »

Quote from: Ironrod on July 24, 2008, 04:46:13 AM

Aren't most of us at the mercy of dueling sources? Unless you have some solid direct knowledge, there is still room for uncertainty -- on both sides.
Exactly, and thus no need for people (not saying you, Ironrod) to bitch at brettmcd about it.
Logged
pr0ner
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5359


Go Flames go!


View Profile
« Reply #88 on: July 29, 2008, 07:22:36 PM »

Even more data says Earth is cooling....
Logged

XBox Live Gamertag: Pr0ner
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #89 on: July 29, 2008, 07:46:53 PM »

In actual fact, there's no new data in that op-ed.  He merely disagrees about the importance of the data that he's repeating.  And, as is typical for these sorts of things the guy who authored it has a PhD in electrical engineering, not climatology (or a related field), he has never published a paper in the field, and has stated in the past that he isn't qualified to create climate models.

Here's a response to his claims from a climate science blog.
Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2993


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #90 on: July 29, 2008, 11:44:43 PM »

Quote from: Brendan on July 29, 2008, 07:46:53 PM

In actual fact, there's no new data in that op-ed.  He merely disagrees about the importance of the data that he's repeating.  And, as is typical for these sorts of things the guy who authored it has a PhD in electrical engineering, not climatology (or a related field), he has never published a paper in the field, and has stated in the past that he isn't qualified to create climate models.

Here's a response to his claims from a climate science blog.

A response from scientists who would be out of a bunch of grant money and funding if man made global warming proved to be the latest science fad.
Logged
Captain Caveman
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1339


View Profile
« Reply #91 on: July 30, 2008, 12:43:59 AM »

Quote from: msduncan on July 29, 2008, 11:44:43 PM

Quote from: Brendan on July 29, 2008, 07:46:53 PM

In actual fact, there's no new data in that op-ed.  He merely disagrees about the importance of the data that he's repeating.  And, as is typical for these sorts of things the guy who authored it has a PhD in electrical engineering, not climatology (or a related field), he has never published a paper in the field, and has stated in the past that he isn't qualified to create climate models.

Here's a response to his claims from a climate science blog.

A response from scientists who would be out of a bunch of grant money and funding if man made global warming proved to be the latest science fad.

I conduct autism research and would be out of grant money if it didn't exist. Do you think I'm making it up?
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #92 on: July 30, 2008, 01:04:04 AM »

Depends on whether or not you ask Michael Weiner, right?

But back to msduncan's claim, are you agreeing with Capt. Cvmn.'s earlier rendering of how the socialist liberal agenda is at work to steal money from hard-working taxpayers?
Logged
brettmcd
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1355


View Profile
« Reply #93 on: July 30, 2008, 06:09:42 AM »

Quote from: Captain Caveman on July 30, 2008, 12:43:59 AM

Quote from: msduncan on July 29, 2008, 11:44:43 PM

Quote from: Brendan on July 29, 2008, 07:46:53 PM

In actual fact, there's no new data in that op-ed.  He merely disagrees about the importance of the data that he's repeating.  And, as is typical for these sorts of things the guy who authored it has a PhD in electrical engineering, not climatology (or a related field), he has never published a paper in the field, and has stated in the past that he isn't qualified to create climate models.

Here's a response to his claims from a climate science blog.

A response from scientists who would be out of a bunch of grant money and funding if man made global warming proved to be the latest science fad.

I conduct autism research and would be out of grant money if it didn't exist. Do you think I'm making it up?

No, but i do most certainly believe there are scientists who are getting grant money that will do whatever they need to do to keep that money coming in, including messing with results.
Logged
IkeVandergraaf
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2784


RRoD FTL! F MS!


View Profile
« Reply #94 on: July 30, 2008, 10:00:29 PM »

I conduct research on the foxy ladies.
Logged

Gamertag = IkeV
I KNOW DEEP IN MY NMIND THAT THIS DISGUSTING WEBSITE THAT IS OBIVOUSLY OPERATED BY HIGHSCHOOL DROPOUTS LIVING PURPOSELESS AND JOBLESS LIVES
Pyperkub
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1569


View Profile
« Reply #95 on: July 30, 2008, 10:19:41 PM »

Quote from: brettmcd on July 30, 2008, 06:09:42 AM

No, but i do most certainly believe there are scientists who are getting grant money that will do whatever they need to do to keep that money coming in, including messing with results.

Do you include global warming naysayers funded by the oil companies in that evaluation?  That particular connection is extremely well-documented...
Logged

Pardon me, but that is a .... damn fine cup of coffee.
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #96 on: July 31, 2008, 03:46:14 PM »

If there were climate scientists who were "messing with results", they'd be found out by their peers when they published their data for review.  That's why the people who "mess with results", like the guys from the American Enterprise Institute, don't publish anything, and typically resort to mis-quoting research papers by actual scientists to further their Exxon-funded agenda.
Logged
brettmcd
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1355


View Profile
« Reply #97 on: July 31, 2008, 05:43:07 PM »

Quote from: Pyperkub on July 30, 2008, 10:19:41 PM

Quote from: brettmcd on July 30, 2008, 06:09:42 AM

No, but i do most certainly believe there are scientists who are getting grant money that will do whatever they need to do to keep that money coming in, including messing with results.

Do you include global warming naysayers funded by the oil companies in that evaluation?  That particular connection is extremely well-documented...

I am stating that some scientists in any field you care to discuss will do that, and yes on both sides of the climate change theories.   Unlike too many in here I am not going to only say the side i disagree with could be wrong, and deny my side could ever possibly make any type of error ever.
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #98 on: July 31, 2008, 06:17:23 PM »

Well hello, Mr. Strawman.  No one has made a claim that scientists who support an explanation of man-made climate change would never "possibly make any type of error ever."  The difference between your side and those scientists is that the errors the scientists make are self-correcting (in that they're reviewed, tested, and questioned by other scientists and revised or discarded when incorrect), while your side intentionally makes "errors" designed to support their pre-selected conclusion and seed doubt in non-scientists.  It's not even debatable whether that's the case:  there's the internal Exxon memo from 1998 that promises to create "uncertainties in climate science" by training new people who lack "a history of visibility in the climate debate."

Even if you were actually able to find "some scientists" who are attempting to hang on to grant dollars (and really, who are these guys?  Exxon would pay them far better to do unscrupulous work on behalf of the oil industry), they aren't somehow equivalent to the oil industry shills who are misleading the public to create confusion.
Logged
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #99 on: July 31, 2008, 07:21:28 PM »

It's interesting this very same type of discussion was had 20 years ago by those who wanted to believe that smoking wasn't harmful and the general scientific community.  It's also interesting to see how many of those "scientists" who supported the tobacco industry have ended up working for Big Energy companies spouting contra-science to try to create doubt and confusion regarding climate change. 
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


View Profile
« Reply #100 on: July 31, 2008, 11:26:57 PM »

Quote from: Brendan on July 31, 2008, 06:17:23 PM

Even if you were actually able to find "some scientists" who are attempting to hang on to grant dollars (and really, who are these guys?  Exxon would pay them far better to do unscrupulous work on behalf of the oil industry), they aren't somehow equivalent to the oil industry shills who are misleading the public to create confusion.
So exactly which one of the following ~40 scientists, climatologists, astrophysicists, geologists, meteorologists, hydrogeologists, solid-state physicists, oceanographers, geochemists, etc, are "oil industry shills?"
Logged
brettmcd
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1355


View Profile
« Reply #101 on: July 31, 2008, 11:35:57 PM »

Quote from: cheeba on July 31, 2008, 11:26:57 PM

Quote from: Brendan on July 31, 2008, 06:17:23 PM

Even if you were actually able to find "some scientists" who are attempting to hang on to grant dollars (and really, who are these guys?  Exxon would pay them far better to do unscrupulous work on behalf of the oil industry), they aren't somehow equivalent to the oil industry shills who are misleading the public to create confusion.
So exactly which one of the following ~40 scientists, climatologists, astrophysicists, geologists, meteorologists, hydrogeologists, solid-state physicists, oceanographers, geochemists, etc, are "oil industry shills?"

Because they dare to disagree I must assume that all of them have to be paid off for what they say, or be lying, or work directly for big oil.  At least thats what one would think from reading the posts of some people in here.
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #102 on: August 01, 2008, 12:40:16 AM »

Quote from: brettmcd on July 31, 2008, 11:35:57 PM

Because they dare to disagree I must assume that all of them have to be paid off for what they say, or be lying, or work directly for big oil.  At least thats what one would think from reading the posts of some people in here.

Hello again, Mr. Strawman!  Pleased to make your repeated acquaintance.

The wikipedia list that you're now attempting to cite is prefaced with the following (emphasis mine):

Quote
This article lists scientists and former scientists who have stated disagreement with one or more of the principal conclusions of the mainstream scientific opinion on global warming. It should not be interpreted as a list of global warming skeptics.  Inclusion is based on specific criteria that do not necessarily reflect skepticism toward climate change caused by human activity, or that such change could be large enough to be harmful.

Climate scientists agree that the global average surface temperature has risen over the last century. Within this general agreement, some individual scientists disagree with the scientific consensus that most of this warming is attributable to human activities.

The scientific consensus was summarized in the 2001 Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as follows:

The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 0.2 C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 C per decade in the last 30 years.

"There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.

If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 C to 5.8 C between 1990 and 2100. Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise of 9 cm to 88 cm, excluding "uncertainty relating to ice dynamical changes in the West Antarctic ice sheet". On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming.

If you're interested in discussing the particular merits of those three IPCC conclusions, have at it; given your modus operandi, I'm quite certain that neither of you actually wants to have an argument about the science - you're just about what "feels right" to your politics. 

But arguing the details is what science is about.  If these guys hold firm to their positions (and let's be clear - many of them are not climate scientsts) and publish something, it'll still be read by everyone and evaluated for the merits.  No one has prevented them from stating their positions and making their claims.  The irresponsible people are the AEI/Heartland/etc "skeptics" who exist solely to dupe people.  Scientific debate should produce policy proscriptions, but their interest is in maintaining the status quo - that's reasonable given that they're motivated by profits and regulation often cuts into that end of things.
Logged
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


View Profile
« Reply #103 on: August 01, 2008, 04:54:21 AM »

Quote from: Brendan on August 01, 2008, 12:40:16 AM

The wikipedia list that you're now attempting to cite is prefaced with the following (emphasis mine):
No, I didn't attempt to cite it, I actually did. I even made a working url= link and all.
Quote
This article lists scientists and former scientists who have stated disagreement with one or more of the principal conclusions of the mainstream scientific opinion on global warming.
See above where I already stated this, in the post that you guys chose to ignore so you could bitch at your fellow forum mates about their expertise not being adequate.
Quote
If you're interested in discussing the particular merits of those three IPCC conclusions, have at it; given your modus operandi, I'm quite certain that neither of you actually wants to have an argument about the science - you're just about what "feels right" to your politics.
Not that you're going to introduce any negativity into the discussion or anything  Roll Eyes. Thing is, as is quite obvious to anyone here, none of us are scientists. The 40ish people I linked are. They believe either that the globe is not warming, that it is warming but it is not human fault, that there's not enough evidence to point one way or the other, or even that the planet warming is a good thing. I doubt anyone here, including myself, has the education to argue intelligently against them. So, where's that leave this discussion? As Ironrod said earlier, there's room for uncertainty on both sides of the issue. So I think that makes those of you who have been berating your fellow forum-goers' lack of expertise in the area look rather foolish and unwise.
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #104 on: August 01, 2008, 01:20:02 PM »

There's a reason that there's no wikipedia article entitled "Scientists who support the principal conclusions of the mainstream scientific opinion of global warming" - because there's thousands and thousands of them.  These forty people are completely entitled to their perspective, but their perspective is only important if they're willing to justify it, publish it, and defend it.   If it's bad science, it'll be exposed.  If it's good science, it'll be credited.  But don't make the mistake in thinking that there's "not enough evidence" to support any conclusions; we Americans love to assume that there's two defensible opposite sides to every topic.  Natural selection/evolution is the only scientifically supportable model for human development, and there's obviously people who disagree with that conclusion, but they're almost entirely in one group: people with a prejudice that will never be able to look honestly at the science because it conflicts with some preconception they have (and this includes people like Michael Behe).

Unlike establishing the risks of tobacco smoking, which (mostly) creates personal risk, obstructing global warming research, as Exxon-Mobile clearly has been doing, has potentially irreversible and enormous consequences for everyone.  For the millenialists, this isn't a big deal.  For those of us who think that it'd be great if humanity stuck around for a few thousand more years, it's a pretty serious topic.  That's why uninformed discussions about this are stupid - read the science and talk about it.  Inform your opinions because otherwise you're just being duped.  Things are easier for the Exxons of the world than for the honest scientists doing the difficult research - all that Exxon needs is inaction, whereas science demands compromises and policy changes that might cost Americans money (or force us to strike difficult deals with other countries).
Logged
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


View Profile
« Reply #105 on: August 01, 2008, 02:21:34 PM »

Quote from: Brendan on August 01, 2008, 01:20:02 PM

There's a reason that there's no wikipedia article entitled "Scientists who support the principal conclusions of the mainstream scientific opinion of global warming" - because there's thousands and thousands of them.
At one time the vast majority of scientists knew the world was flat. Popularity in a belief does not equate to truth. There are many opinions out there, many of them belonging to highly qualified people who have been brave enough to offer an opinion unaffected by the pressures of conformity.
Quote
These forty people are completely entitled to their perspective, but their perspective is only important if they're willing to justify it, publish it, and defend it.
No. Their perspective is only important to you under those conditions.
Quote
obstructing global warming research, as Exxon-Mobile clearly has been doing, has potentially irreversible and enormous consequences for everyone.
OK, sure. As I've said, which of those 40ish scientists, climatologists, geophysicists, etc, are being paid by Exxon-Mobil? Any?

And at the risk of this becoming another stupid "brendan vs. cheeba" debate, I will be cutting it off there. I've made my point.
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #106 on: August 01, 2008, 03:22:35 PM »

The only way their perspective becomes important is if they produce a hypothesis, test it, and publish their data.  That's how science works.  Whether or not scientific conclusions should be used by policy makers is an issue that can be debated; whether or not "opinion" merits the description of "science" does not, even if those opinions are posited by scientists.

But hey, the Northwest Passage is now open for business.  There's a silver lining to the ominous thundercloud.
Logged
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #107 on: August 01, 2008, 03:24:54 PM »

Cheeba, do you really want to know where these guys make their money?  

- George Chilingarian actively worked for the oil and energy industry.

- Ian Clark is funded by the NRSP, which is a remake of the already-discredited "Friends of Science" group.  Do you need to even guess who funded that group?

- David Douglass is a member of the Heartland Institute, which is nothing more than a Exxon front.  It gets money from Exxon and has Exxon employees in promiment public positions in the Institute.

- William Kininmonth writes for the Lavoisier Group, which was founded by Hugh Morgan the former CEO of Western Mining Corporation, a uranium mining company.  This same group also helped publish Kininmonth's book.  He's also paid by The Science and Public Policy Institute, which ExxonMobil has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to and is run by ultra-conservative Bob Ferguson.

-David Legates is a senior scientist of the Marshall Institute, a research fellow with the Independent Institute, and an adjunct scholar of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, all of which have received funding from ExxonMobile.

Just a quick scan down the list shows guys like Singer and Lindzen, whose money ties to big energy are well known.  Hell, Singer is the one of the guys I was referencing about 10 posts ago who switched to Big Energy when Big Tobacco couldn't keep up their charade any longer.  Guys like Kulka, Bryson, Easterbrook and Bill Gray are either retired or semi-retired, which restricts the ability to do background research on their sources of income.  Some guys listed, like Kininmonth, have never been been published in any Scientifc Journals.

And that's only part of the list...I didn't even review half of the names.  It doesn't mean that all of them are tainted, but many of them are, leaving perhaps a precious few who may legitimately disagree with the overwhelming majority of scientists out there who do believe in climate change.  When it's a handful against thousands, it's not really an issue under debate.

By the way, the "vast majority" of scientists didn't believe the Earth was flat.  It was the Church that imposed this view.  It wasn't until after Martin Luther that the Scientific Revolution even started.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2008, 03:26:31 PM by Blackadar » Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #108 on: August 01, 2008, 03:29:56 PM »

Ultimately, it doesn't even matter that those guys have ties to Big Oil - even scientists for the oil companies are capable of producing real research, of course. 

However, if they had some real research, they'd be pushing it out for everyone to see.  Despite having literally billions of dollars behind them, and the hopes of a massively profitable industry that would do anything to see them "disprove" global warming, they've got nothing to show for it, as well as an acknowledged interest in muddying the waters for the people who are publishing.
Logged
brettmcd
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1355


View Profile
« Reply #109 on: August 02, 2008, 04:05:22 AM »

Quote from: Blackadar on August 01, 2008, 03:24:54 PM

Cheeba, do you really want to know where these guys make their money? 

- George Chilingarian actively worked for the oil and energy industry.

- Ian Clark is funded by the NRSP, which is a remake of the already-discredited "Friends of Science" group.  Do you need to even guess who funded that group?

- David Douglass is a member of the Heartland Institute, which is nothing more than a Exxon front.  It gets money from Exxon and has Exxon employees in promiment public positions in the Institute.

- William Kininmonth writes for the Lavoisier Group, which was founded by Hugh Morgan the former CEO of Western Mining Corporation, a uranium mining company.  This same group also helped publish Kininmonth's book.  He's also paid by The Science and Public Policy Institute, which ExxonMobil has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to and is run by ultra-conservative Bob Ferguson.

-David Legates is a senior scientist of the Marshall Institute, a research fellow with the Independent Institute, and an adjunct scholar of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, all of which have received funding from ExxonMobile.

Just a quick scan down the list shows guys like Singer and Lindzen, whose money ties to big energy are well known.  Hell, Singer is the one of the guys I was referencing about 10 posts ago who switched to Big Energy when Big Tobacco couldn't keep up their charade any longer.  Guys like Kulka, Bryson, Easterbrook and Bill Gray are either retired or semi-retired, which restricts the ability to do background research on their sources of income.  Some guys listed, like Kininmonth, have never been been published in any Scientifc Journals.

And that's only part of the list...I didn't even review half of the names.  It doesn't mean that all of them are tainted, but many of them are, leaving perhaps a precious few who may legitimately disagree with the overwhelming majority of scientists out there who do believe in climate change.  When it's a handful against thousands, it's not really an issue under debate.

By the way, the "vast majority" of scientists didn't believe the Earth was flat.  It was the Church that imposed this view.  It wasn't until after Martin Luther that the Scientific Revolution even started.

Fine by your logic here anyone who gets a cent of funding from any environmental group or anything to do with the environment can be ignored as well.   So is there anyone left you will allow us to listen to on this topic?
Logged
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #110 on: August 02, 2008, 11:25:28 AM »

Quote from: brettmcd on August 02, 2008, 04:05:22 AM

Quote from: Blackadar on August 01, 2008, 03:24:54 PM

Cheeba, do you really want to know where these guys make their money? 

- George Chilingarian actively worked for the oil and energy industry.

- Ian Clark is funded by the NRSP, which is a remake of the already-discredited "Friends of Science" group.  Do you need to even guess who funded that group?

- David Douglass is a member of the Heartland Institute, which is nothing more than a Exxon front.  It gets money from Exxon and has Exxon employees in promiment public positions in the Institute.

- William Kininmonth writes for the Lavoisier Group, which was founded by Hugh Morgan the former CEO of Western Mining Corporation, a uranium mining company.  This same group also helped publish Kininmonth's book.  He's also paid by The Science and Public Policy Institute, which ExxonMobil has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to and is run by ultra-conservative Bob Ferguson.

-David Legates is a senior scientist of the Marshall Institute, a research fellow with the Independent Institute, and an adjunct scholar of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, all of which have received funding from ExxonMobile.

Just a quick scan down the list shows guys like Singer and Lindzen, whose money ties to big energy are well known.  Hell, Singer is the one of the guys I was referencing about 10 posts ago who switched to Big Energy when Big Tobacco couldn't keep up their charade any longer.  Guys like Kulka, Bryson, Easterbrook and Bill Gray are either retired or semi-retired, which restricts the ability to do background research on their sources of income.  Some guys listed, like Kininmonth, have never been been published in any Scientifc Journals.

And that's only part of the list...I didn't even review half of the names.  It doesn't mean that all of them are tainted, but many of them are, leaving perhaps a precious few who may legitimately disagree with the overwhelming majority of scientists out there who do believe in climate change.  When it's a handful against thousands, it's not really an issue under debate.

By the way, the "vast majority" of scientists didn't believe the Earth was flat.  It was the Church that imposed this view.  It wasn't until after Martin Luther that the Scientific Revolution even started.

Fine by your logic here anyone who gets a cent of funding from any environmental group or anything to do with the environment can be ignored as well.   So is there anyone left you will allow us to listen to on this topic?

Reading is fundamental.  Note in my post I said that "it doesn't mean that all of them are tainted".  You really need to learn some reading comprehension skills.  Maybe start with this one .

Cheeba asked which ones are "oil industry shills".  The guys listed above all suckle at the tit of Big Energy.  While that doesn't instantly invalidate their positions, it should cast into doubt their motives.  When your kids' college education is being paid for by Exxon, who also happens to be funding your research, I think that's a pretty big conflict of interest.

Guys like Singer and Linzden are well known shills.  Others on that list are very suspect.  Some aren't even published scientists.  Others are retired or semi-retired.  So pulling a list of a few names off of Wiki and trying to waive it around like Joe McCarthy - "I have here in my hand a list" - isn't going to get you a lot of credibility in the discussion.  And therein lies the problem with the anti-global warming groups.  They really have very little consequential science to pull from.  Virtually everything they create isn't even submitted for peer review because it's so flawed.  So they spend their time trying to poke holes in other research.  Again, it's almost the same exact page from the Big Tobacco "secondhand smoke isn't bad for you" playbook.  I guess some people never learn....
« Last Edit: August 02, 2008, 11:28:13 AM by Blackadar » Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
brettmcd
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1355


View Profile
« Reply #111 on: August 02, 2008, 12:55:05 PM »

Quote from: Blackadar on August 02, 2008, 11:25:28 AM

Quote from: brettmcd on August 02, 2008, 04:05:22 AM

Quote from: Blackadar on August 01, 2008, 03:24:54 PM

Cheeba, do you really want to know where these guys make their money? 

- George Chilingarian actively worked for the oil and energy industry.

- Ian Clark is funded by the NRSP, which is a remake of the already-discredited "Friends of Science" group.  Do you need to even guess who funded that group?

- David Douglass is a member of the Heartland Institute, which is nothing more than a Exxon front.  It gets money from Exxon and has Exxon employees in promiment public positions in the Institute.

- William Kininmonth writes for the Lavoisier Group, which was founded by Hugh Morgan the former CEO of Western Mining Corporation, a uranium mining company.  This same group also helped publish Kininmonth's book.  He's also paid by The Science and Public Policy Institute, which ExxonMobil has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to and is run by ultra-conservative Bob Ferguson.

-David Legates is a senior scientist of the Marshall Institute, a research fellow with the Independent Institute, and an adjunct scholar of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, all of which have received funding from ExxonMobile.

Just a quick scan down the list shows guys like Singer and Lindzen, whose money ties to big energy are well known.  Hell, Singer is the one of the guys I was referencing about 10 posts ago who switched to Big Energy when Big Tobacco couldn't keep up their charade any longer.  Guys like Kulka, Bryson, Easterbrook and Bill Gray are either retired or semi-retired, which restricts the ability to do background research on their sources of income.  Some guys listed, like Kininmonth, have never been been published in any Scientifc Journals.

And that's only part of the list...I didn't even review half of the names.  It doesn't mean that all of them are tainted, but many of them are, leaving perhaps a precious few who may legitimately disagree with the overwhelming majority of scientists out there who do believe in climate change.  When it's a handful against thousands, it's not really an issue under debate.

By the way, the "vast majority" of scientists didn't believe the Earth was flat.  It was the Church that imposed this view.  It wasn't until after Martin Luther that the Scientific Revolution even started.

Fine by your logic here anyone who gets a cent of funding from any environmental group or anything to do with the environment can be ignored as well.   So is there anyone left you will allow us to listen to on this topic?

Reading is fundamental.  Note in my post I said that "it doesn't mean that all of them are tainted".  You really need to learn some reading comprehension skills.  Maybe start with this one .

Cheeba asked which ones are "oil industry shills".  The guys listed above all suckle at the tit of Big Energy.  While that doesn't instantly invalidate their positions, it should cast into doubt their motives.  When your kids' college education is being paid for by Exxon, who also happens to be funding your research, I think that's a pretty big conflict of interest.

Guys like Singer and Linzden are well known shills.  Others on that list are very suspect.  Some aren't even published scientists.  Others are retired or semi-retired.  So pulling a list of a few names off of Wiki and trying to waive it around like Joe McCarthy - "I have here in my hand a list" - isn't going to get you a lot of credibility in the discussion.  And therein lies the problem with the anti-global warming groups.  They really have very little consequential science to pull from.  Virtually everything they create isn't even submitted for peer review because it's so flawed.  So they spend their time trying to poke holes in other research.  Again, it's almost the same exact page from the Big Tobacco "secondhand smoke isn't bad for you" playbook.  I guess some people never learn....

Oh well, I should have known better then to respond to you, I was hoping for something other then the same old tired insults from you.   You can now join Brendan as someone who will never again get a response from me on something you post.
Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2993


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #112 on: August 02, 2008, 04:07:42 PM »

At least Brendan posts reasoned out arguments, and since the mods' warnings we all have reined in the more heated parts of our debating.   I disagree with Brendan, but he's putting up a great argument for his case.

Blackadar goes straight for the neck with insults.  I'm done arguing with him.
Logged
Geezer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 532


View Profile
« Reply #113 on: August 03, 2008, 05:31:17 AM »

Quote from: msduncan on August 02, 2008, 04:07:42 PM

At least Brendan posts reasoned out arguments, and since the mods' warnings we all have reined in the more heated parts of our debating.   I disagree with Brendan, but he's putting up a great argument for his case.

Just out of curiosity, what kind of evidence would convince you that climate change was a result of human actions, and what kind of rationale would you need to see before you were convinced that we should try and do something about it?
Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2993


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #114 on: August 03, 2008, 03:24:58 PM »

Quote from: Geezer on August 03, 2008, 05:31:17 AM

Quote from: msduncan on August 02, 2008, 04:07:42 PM

At least Brendan posts reasoned out arguments, and since the mods' warnings we all have reined in the more heated parts of our debating.   I disagree with Brendan, but he's putting up a great argument for his case.

Just out of curiosity, what kind of evidence would convince you that climate change was a result of human actions, and what kind of rationale would you need to see before you were convinced that we should try and do something about it?

For starters, when the movement isn't led by a political hack that is profiting from it.
Logged
Mookee
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 225


View Profile
« Reply #115 on: August 03, 2008, 06:16:11 PM »

That's a Nobel Peace Prize winning political hack. slywink
Logged
brettmcd
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1355


View Profile
« Reply #116 on: August 03, 2008, 09:11:05 PM »

Quote from: Mookee on August 03, 2008, 06:16:11 PM

That's a Nobel Peace Prize winning political hack. slywink

Like that award means anything anymore, they even give it to terrorists now.   I wouldnt see it as an honor anymore to have been awarded one.
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #117 on: August 03, 2008, 09:34:49 PM »

Truly beyond parody.
Logged
Ironrod
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3402



View Profile WWW
« Reply #118 on: August 04, 2008, 04:14:09 AM »

I'd quibble with "movement" and "led by", but...nah.
Logged

Curio City Online - Weird stuff you can buy
Curious Business - The Curio City Blog
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #119 on: August 04, 2008, 02:11:00 PM »

Quote from: Ironrod on August 04, 2008, 04:14:09 AM

I'd quibble with "movement" and "led by", but...nah.

That's why I show such disdain for those who argue against global warming.  It's all about slight of hand and confusion and not on fact.  So we're asked "which of the 40 are being paid by Exxon?" and when it's pointed out that a fair number on that list pay their mortgages with funding from Big Energy, suddenly the motives of the entire scientific community are circumspect.  When it's pointed out that a fair number are are retired or have never been published for peer review, it's because that they're persecuted for their beliefs (I heard this excuse on another forum).  When asked when they would do something about it, they respond negatively against a personality and not against the scientific research.  It's all about deflection, not debate.

These are some of the *exact* same methods used by Christian radicals to try to "disprove" evolution to prevent it from being taught in schools.  These are the *exact* same methods used by Big Tobacco to try to "disprove" the health effects from smoking and second-hand smoke.  Virtually every one of those listed scientists at one point denied that the Earth was warming at all.  Now many of them say it's warming, but it's part of a "natural" cycle.  The first position is entirely inconsistent with the second - and that in itself should cast into doubt the methods used by those scientists - but for anyone looking for any excuse to cling to the belief the Earth isn't heating up, it's not important that the reasoning has jumped to an entirely new excuse that's inconsistent with the first one.

There's precious little debate on this issue in the real scientific community about whether it's happening or not.  That debate passed long ago for all but a few - most of whom have suspect motives.  The real debate is regarding how much of a role mankind is playing, how to minimize that role, the amount of change that's happening and what the effects of those changes will be.  That's the debate now - but if your position was "it's not happening" - then your research should be very carefully scrutinized before being used.  And if you won't submit that research for peer review, or don't use proper scientific methods, then I think it's proper to question the motives of those scientists and entirely discount their so-called proof.  A fair number of that list fall wholesale into this group....and that's really attempt at deflection, not debate. 

There are really only two reasons that I can think of (there may be more) people argue about whether it's happening.  The first is religious.  There are some who believe that God placed things on this Earth to be used by man (I forget the exact passage).  Therefore, it's His will that allows us to use these things - after all, He knows how they'd be used.  I understand that reasoning, but it doesn't make for good public policy on scientific matters.  The second is about money - there are a number of business interests that are threatened by the consequences of global warming.  As such, they want to protect their interests and don't want to make any change until all aspects - degree and consequences - are known facts.  Of course, this is an unreasonable position - those things can't be known until after they happen.  But they'll insist on getting that before making any change, which means that they'll seize on any opinion that looks factual as "proof" to try to prevent any public policies from being made.
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.273 seconds with 102 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.091s, 2q)