Top Ten Junk Science Stories of the Past Decade [Archive]

Corporate Avenger

04-08-2006, 06:18 AM

That doesn't prove them wrong. Did you even read the article or can you prove that everything in it is just PR?

Good Lord, if ExxonMobils pr people told you pigs fly you'd believe it. It's not like anything was "proven" in that article that needs to be disproven anyway.

And yes, I read the tabloid crap article, do you even know anything about this corporate advocate Milloy who pushes his lies onto all of us? Obviously not, I do, I've been seeing this crap for years andyears, it's always the same old thing. I didn't actually think there were people out there ignorant enough to believe this "smoking isn't harmful" corporate newsspeak that is rampant these days. What a shame it is.

But since I have to be the kindergarten teacher I will waste my time to educate you guys, I'm cheaper than an illegal immigrant:P

Steven J. Milloy is a columnist for Fox News and a paid advocate for Phillip Morris, ExxonMobil and other corporations. From the 1990s until the end of 2005, he was an adjunct scholar at the libertarian think tank the Cato Institute.

Milloy runs the website Junkscience.com, which is dedicated to debunking what he alleges to be false claims regarding global warming, DDT, environmental radicalism and scare science among other topics.[1] (http://www.junkscience.com/define.htm) His other website, CSR Watch.com, is focused around attacking the corporate social responsibility movement. He is also head of the Free Enterprise Action Fund, a mutual fund he runs with tobacco executive Tom Borelli, who happens to be listed as the secretary of the Advancement of Sound Science Center, an organisation Milloy operates from his home in Potomac, Maryland .

Milloy holds a B.A. in Natural Sciences from the Johns Hopkins University, a Master of Health Sciences in Biostatistics from the Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health, a Juris Doctorate from the University of Baltimore, and a Master of Laws from the Georgetown University Law Center.[2] (http://www.junkscience.com/Junkman.html)

In January 2006, Paul D. Thacker reported in The New Republic that Milloy has received thousands of dollars in payments from the Phillip Morris company since the early nineties, and that NGOs controlled by Milloy have received large payments from ExxonMobil [3] (https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=20060206&s=thacker020606). A spokesperson for Fox News stated, "Fox News was unaware of Milloy's connection with Philip Morris. Any affiliation he had should have been disclosed."

Milloy the lobbyist

Milloy has spent much of his life as a lobbyist for major corporations and trade organisations which have poisioning or polluting problems. He originally ran NEPI (National Environmental Policy Institute (http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=56)) which was founded by Republican Rep Don Ritter (who tried to get tobacco industry funding) using oil and gas industry funding. NEPI was dedicated to transforming both the EPA and the FDA, and challenging the cost of Superfund toxic cleanups by these large corporations.

NEPI was also associated with the AQSC (Air Quality Standards Coalition) which was devoted to emasculating Clean Air laws. This organisation took up the cry of "we need sound science" from the chemical industry as a way to counter claims of pollution -- and Milloy became involved in what became known as the "sound-science" movement. Its most effective ploy was to label science not beneficial to the large funding corporations as "junk" -- and Milloy was one of its most effective lobbyists because he wrote well, and used humour (PJ O'Rourke was another -- but better!)

He joined Philip Morris's specialist-science/PR company APCO & Associates in 1992, working behind the scenes on a business venture known as "Issues Watch". By this time, APCO had been taken over and become a part of the world-wide Grey Marketing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_market) organisation, and so Milloy was able to use the international organisation as a feed source for services to corporations who had international problems.

Issues Watch bulletins were only given out to paying customers, so Milloy started for APCO the "Junkscience.com" web site, which gave him an outlet to attack health and environmental activists, and scientists who published findings not supportive of his client's businesses. Like most good PR it mixes some good, general criticism of science and science-reporting, with some outright distorted and manipulative pieces.

The Junkscience web site was supposedly run by a pseudo-grassroots organisation called TASSC (The Advancement for Sound Science Coalition), which initially paid ex-Governor Curruthers of New Mexico as a front. Milloy actually ran it from the back-room, and issued the press releases. Then when Curruthers resigned, Milloy started to call himself "Director" (Bonner Cohen - another of the same ilk also working for APCO - became "President")

Initially all of this was funded by Philip Morris, as part of their contributions to the distortion of tobacco science, but later they widened out the focus and introduced even more funding by establishing a coalition -- with energy, pharmaceutical, chemical companies. TASSC's funders include 3M, Amoco, Chevron, Dow Chemical, Exxon, General Motors, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Lorillard Tobacco, Louisiana Chemical Association, National Pest Control Association, Occidental Petroleum, Philip Morris Companies, Procter & Gamble, Santa Fe Pacific Gold, and W.R. Grace, the asbestos and pesticide manufacturers.

TASSC was then exposed publicly as a fraud. And so Milloy established the "Citizens for the Integrity of Science" to take over the running of the Junkscience.com web site.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steven_J._Milloy

This is who you are trusting, a paid hack for some of the worst corporations on the planet.

The only thing that's junk is the crap this Milloy clown is peddling, and just like every other lie that spews forth from the mouth of corporate pr demons, crooked politicians, and right wing pundits, the people eat it up like a Thankgiving feast.

Whatever happened to people doing research into important issues before blindly accepting whatever those in positions of authority tell them?

Betrade

04-08-2006, 06:36 AM

I tend to believe the article's assertions for the most part. I've been hearing that the sky is falling for the last 40 years, and not one of the dire predictions has come true in my lifetime. Scientists actually claimed that by the year 2020, there would be standing room only on the earth due to overpopulation. This was actually taught in public schools in the late 60's, and maybe longer. They were wrong then, and there's a good chance that they're wrong now.

They haven't even figured out yet of coffee is good, or bad for humans. It changes from year to year, but we're supposed to believe that predictions of events 150 years from now are accurate, even though we can't even get an accurate weather report for the middle of next week.

The money factor is an issue, but it works on both sides; not just one. The corporate funded scientists are no less credible than those who are receiving government, or pro environmental funding. I don't know how many unbiased scientists actually exist, and if they do, if they're the ones presenting these warnings of future calamities.

What is presented as fact to the public is often discredited later. It's happened throughout history. When I was a kid, there were fears of a mini ice age, like the one that preceeded the dark ages, which was preceeded by global warming, which wasn't caused by humans burning fossil fuels. It was more likely vocanic activity, or a possible asteroid event like the one that occured in Siberia in 1908, or both. No one really knows for sure. It could be something we aren't even aware of yet that's causing these temperature fluctuations.

We know this happened through written records, tree ring data, and other factors.

Natural phenonema have to be calculated as well as man made factors, or the science really is junk. We can't look at one slice of the big picture and get an accurate result. Everything we're told is someone's best guess based on the data available at present. That information is always subject to change.

Corporate Avenger

04-08-2006, 06:40 AM

There's no point in trying to talk to Corp about this. In his mind, any evidence that supports a corporation must be false, and any talking point that opposes them must be the word of God. He made up his mind that he was gonna hate corporations a long time ago.

Another that has no idea what he is talking about, you're a perfect example of pr money well spent.

I don't have any hate for good corporations, I support those that operate within the law, are ethical and moral in their business. But of course, in the wacky libertarian world, all corporations ARE the true God, to be worshipped at any cost, and any criticism leveled at them must be from no good communists who want to distribute their earnings amongst the masses.:rolleyes: I've seen this more times than I care to even think about.

You guys believe that corporations which were granted personhood, which gives them all the rights of people, shouldn't also have to follow the laws of this land that all of us mortals have to follow. You believe no matter what horrors a corporation brings onto the world, we should suck it up and accept it because it's in the name of the almighty dollar (aka Jesus Christ amongst libertarians). I know exactly how the church of the holy free market thinks, I know how you try to marginalize any voice of protest against corporate wrong-doing. You guys think if some gangster goes out and murders somebody he should face the death penalty, but if some morally bankrupt corporation decides that they can make a buck off a product which might maim a thousand people, or give millions cancer, that's just them working the free market and is 100% good and holy. It's truly a sickening belief system.

Those of us that don't belong to the church of the un-regulated free market who wish to see corporate criminals face the same punishments us normal citizens would recieve if we went out killing for profit, or forcing drugs onto people, or subverting the government through the use of bribes just want justice. And we want to be left the hell alone, and we want the freedom to do things that have been done for millenia, like say, plant a seed without having to pay royalties to some corporate monster that wants to profit off of controlling our lives like some fascist state.

So excuse me for not being another sucker that eats up this corporate dogpoop. I like my freedom and my health, the oil cartels, the pharma cartels, nor the chemical cartels care one iota about public health and safety. It's just like reefer madness, those bastards would sell their mothers to the devil for a buck. Too bad so many people have been indoctrinated by their highly effective propaganda.

:nonono:

Now if you want to actually discuss these things I'd love to, throwing out comments like "he just hates rich people and corporations" are a cop-out.

Corporate Avenger

04-08-2006, 06:42 AM

A guy getting money from Exxon Mobile and Phillip Morris . Surely the least biased opinion on Pollution and Health...

It's always the same old nonsense, those that are paid shills for these corporations tell us that smoking isn't bad for you, global warming is a myth, and carcinogens in the foods we eat are harmless. It should be a crime.

Corporate Avenger

04-08-2006, 06:44 AM

You didn't answer the question. Can you invalidate ANY of the statements put forth in the original article?

Can you prove any of Milloy's nonsense?

Of course you can't, and neither can he, he just hopes you believe him.

Diverlady

04-08-2006, 11:27 AM

The Weather Makers : How Man Is Changing the Climate and What It Means for Life on Earth by Tim Flannery

If you swallowed the BS in the posted article above you better read this book. I dont know about anything else in the list but if after reading The Weather Makers you dont believe the truth about Global warming then you deserve to be impacted by it.

Global warming is real. It is accepted by virtually every scientist I have ever spoken to personally. Just watch this years Hurricane season it should be a hell of a ride. Oh and then get used to it. Because its going to get worse if we dont deal with the issue.

Feenix566

04-08-2006, 12:06 PM

Java_man

04-08-2006, 12:21 PM

The money factor is an issue, but it works on both sides; not just one. The corporate funded scientists are no less credible than those who are receiving government, or pro environmental funding.

How is a scientist funded by the government less credible than one funded by Exxon-Mobil ? (given the ridicously obvious economic interest they have in the continued consumption of fossil fuel)

Is the Government going to somehow magically earn trillions of dollars if we reduce oil consumption or reduce CO2 emissions ?

Please explain the parity of your ... "it works on both sides" argument when there is no parity visible

PlatyGuy

04-08-2006, 01:29 PM

The money factor is an issue, but it works on both sides; not just one.
Yes, but not equally. A penny is not the same as a dollar, and that's a closer ratio than that between government funding for science on one side of this debate vs. corporate funding for PR on the other. Pretending that they're the same is doing the shills' work for them.

As I pointed out in another thread that a sympathetic mod "forgot" to merge/close as a dup of this one, Steve Milloy is known for his sloppy science, use of "sockpuppets" and outright fabrication. Don't take my word for it, though. Anybody who has even the slightest interest in the truth of these matters can just look here (http://timlambert.org/category/science/milloy/) to find dozens of detailed factual rebuttals of Milloy's claims - including many rehashed in this Faux News piece. Like some here, Milloy just doesn't care - or perhaps can't even recognize - how often or thoroughly he's proven wrong. He just repeats the same BS as though nothing happened. Only a fool or a tool would accept his claims without doing even a minimal amount of research.

I don't know

04-08-2006, 02:13 PM

I'm getting bored of this. Listen, here's Google scholar: www.scholar.google.com

Anyone who wants "climate sceptics" to seem anything but a tiny fringe group of whackos who snuggle up in the wallets of certain oil companies at bedtime: please use all your googling skillz to find 5 or more peer-reviewed articles written by climate scientists claiming that the anthropogenic forcing of the earth's climate isn't significant.

Diverlady

04-08-2006, 09:34 PM

You want to solve the probem? Start with a Carbon tax. Replace consuption taxes and Income taxes with it and both encourage alternative energy but also stimulate the economy. Its an idea even some of the energy companies are interested in.

Stone

04-10-2006, 01:22 AM

The author runs a website that says that the Greenhouse effect doesn't exist. But it does! Just go inside a greenhouse in the winter. :rolleyes:

The man is definately skewed in his "science." His website doesn't include lab reports for the experiments that he supposedly conducts. Are we supposed to take his word for it?

hadit

04-10-2006, 08:25 AM

Can you prove any of Milloy's nonsense?

Of course you can't, and neither can he, he just hopes you believe him.

You claim they're false, give us some evidence they are. So far, all you've done is attack the messenger because you don't like the message.

PlatyGuy

04-10-2006, 08:36 AM

hadit

04-10-2006, 08:42 AM

Links to much of that information have already been provided, hadit; don't expect it to be retyped here for your convenience. Either you're interested enough in the facts to click a link or you're not.

I was interested in what CA had to say, after evading the question and focussing on the messenger.

Corporate Avenger

04-10-2006, 08:45 AM

You claim they're false, give us some evidence they are. So far, all you've done is attack the messenger because you don't like the message.

Haha, you're hopeless, I can't help it you blieve the Earth is flat, nothing I can say will ever change your mind.

How stupid do we need to make this hack look before you back away from your claims?

It's already been shown that this is sophmoric corporate propaganda, does your boss at the RNC not allow you to piss of your lobbyists?

Corporate Avenger

04-10-2006, 08:46 AM

I was interested in what CA had to say, after evading the question and focussing on the messenger.

Did you not see any of my posts??? Good Lord, if ExxonMobil told you scientology was the way would that make it fact to you?:eek3:

hadit

04-10-2006, 08:46 AM

Haha, you're hopeless, I can't help it you blieve the Earth is flat, nothing I can say will ever change your mind.

How stupid do we need to make this hack look before you back away from your claims?

It's already been shown that this is sophmoric corporate propaganda, does your boss at the RNC not allow you to piss of your lobbyists?

Hey, I tried three times. That's enough.

Corporate Avenger

04-10-2006, 08:48 AM

Here's the direct link to my post on the page before this one.

http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1277159&postcount=11

So you can't say you didn't see it, just click.

hadit

04-10-2006, 09:03 AM

Here's the direct link to my post on the page before this one.

http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1277159&postcount=11

So you can't say you didn't see it, just click.

I saw it the first time. It attacked the messenger and didn't address the message.

I don't know

04-10-2006, 09:50 AM

I'm getting bored of this. Listen, here's Google scholar: www.scholar.google.com (http://www.scholar.google.com)

Anyone who wants "climate sceptics" to seem anything but a tiny fringe group of whackos who snuggle up in the wallets of certain oil companies at bedtime: please use all your googling skillz to find 5 or more peer-reviewed articles written by climate scientists claiming that the anthropogenic forcing of the earth's climate isn't significant.- My challenge still stands... :hmm:

Freedom&Liberty

04-10-2006, 11:26 AM

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steven_J._Milloy

This is who you are trusting, a paid hack for some of the worst corporations on the planet.
Whatever happened to people doing research into important issues before blindly accepting whatever those in positions of authority tell them?Of course the validity of Sourcewatch goes with out saying, right?:rolleyes: I researched your source and it's even less credible than Milloy. Sourcewatch is owned by the Center for Media and Democracy(CMD). After researching several of the foudations that contribute to CMD, I found that most all of them also contribute to numerous ecology/green minded orgs. A bit more research into the founder and a few staff members and a trend developed that shows CMD to be left leaning bunch of eco-nuts. This is who you are trusting, an entire group of paid hacks, funded by ecology minded foundations. Can you understand how that would influence CMD/Sourcewatch in their findings or do only you're pigs fly?

A couple of quotes from CMD's founder John Stauber:

I am an environmental activist and have been since the word was coined in the 1960s.

As I've in my book Toxic Sludge Is
Good for You, it's because these huge non-profit environmental organizations behave like businesses, and most of them now take money and services from the very corporations that whose lobbyists and trade associations are undermining environmental protections. While the Big Green environmental groups prosper they treat their ³members² like nothing more than suckers at the end of a direct mail appeal.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/wherenow012505.cfm

Freedom&Liberty

04-10-2006, 11:44 AM

- My challenge still stands... :hmm:I think most people understand that the climate is changing. However, there is no concensus or conclusive evidence as to why the climate is changing.

hadit

04-10-2006, 11:56 AM

PlatyGuy

04-10-2006, 11:59 AM

Of course the validity of Sourcewatch goes with out saying...
In case anyone was wondering, that was an example of attacking the messenger. Not a single fact was refuted or even addressed; it was entirely about where the information came from. It's pure ad hominem, whereas CA at least made some attempt to address the facts of the matter.

Sinclair

04-10-2006, 12:17 PM

In case anyone was wondering, that was an example of attacking the messenger. Not a single fact was refuted or even addressed; it was entirely about where the information came from. It's pure ad hominem, whereas CA at least made some attempt to address the facts of the matter.
The source matters.

Let's compare, say, oil companies and ecological groups:

Oil companies definitely have something to gain from making people believe climate change is not happening: They sell oil. If there was less demand for oil, they'd lose money.

Ecological groups... What do they have to gain? They care about the environment. They're not making money from the ice caps staying frozen.

hadit

04-10-2006, 12:23 PM

The source matters.

Let's compare, say, oil companies and ecological groups:

Oil companies definitely have something to gain from making people believe climate change is not happening: They sell oil. If there was less demand for oil, they'd lose money.

Ecological groups... What do they have to gain? They care about the environment. They're not making money from the ice caps staying frozen.

They gain power and influence. They gain government funding if they can alarm enough Congressmen to get the money flowing. They aren't about "live and let live", they want to push their lifestyle onto everyone else. Notice that they usually reject free market approaches to problems. Government raise gasoline taxes by 50 cent/gallon=good. Supply disruptions raise the price of gasoline by 50 cents/gallon=bad. Simply because of who gets the money.

Freedom&Liberty

04-10-2006, 12:33 PM

I don't know

04-10-2006, 12:35 PM

I think most people understand that the climate is changing. However, there is no concensus or conclusive evidence as to why the climate is changing.- I phrased myself quite carefully, to quote myself: "....written by climate scientists claiming that the anthropogenic forcing of the earth's climate isn't significant"

Feel free to add "very" to that "significant" if you want. Enjoy your search :D

Freedom&Liberty

04-10-2006, 12:45 PM

PlatyGuy

04-10-2006, 02:57 PM

The irony is thick isn't it.
It's not the irony that's thick. It's you.

caddis

04-10-2006, 03:20 PM

It's not the irony that's thick. It's you.In case anyone was wondering, that was an example of a personal attack

igofast

04-10-2006, 03:29 PM

settle down, peeps

Sinclair

04-10-2006, 03:42 PM

They gain power and influence. They gain government funding if they can alarm enough Congressmen to get the money flowing. They aren't about "live and let live", they want to push their lifestyle onto everyone else. Notice that they usually reject free market approaches to problems. Government raise gasoline taxes by 50 cent/gallon=good. Supply disruptions raise the price of gasoline by 50 cents/gallon=bad. Simply because of who gets the money.

I think that the government funding they'd get is probably much less than what the oil companies are making...

And the gas taxes could be used to, say, clean up oil spills.

Plus, let's say that drastic measures are undertaken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and the whole thing turns out to be hooey: The economy of course will get screwed up. That's not good.

But if change doesn't occur, and it turns out, whoops, it should have? The damage would be worse: Economic hits are still better than a rising sea level, and all the other crap that is being associated with climate change.

hadit

04-10-2006, 04:18 PM

I think that the government funding they'd get is probably much less than what the oil companies are making...

Less or more is not significant. Once they convince Congress there is a problem that must be addressed, they have to keep "finding" more science to bolster their argument or their funding gets cut off.

And the gas taxes could be used to, say, clean up oil spills.

And the oil company could use the extra funds to buy insurance to do the same thing. Or they could use it to buy more oil on the world market at the high price.

Plus, let's say that drastic measures are undertaken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and the whole thing turns out to be hooey: The economy of course will get screwed up. That's not good.

But if change doesn't occur, and it turns out, whoops, it should have? The damage would be worse: Economic hits are still better than a rising sea level, and all the other crap that is being associated with climate change.

Hence the need to be sure about the science. Did you see that article on how the global temperature appears to have stopped rising in 1998? That kind of thing needs to be nailed down before we kick ourselves back to the 18th century.

I don't know

04-11-2006, 02:01 AM

Even if it's a very massive, mind altering significant change with violent global impact that will kill billions, there's no conclusion as to why. Without knowing why, you've got nothing. Are you contending that it's the result of pollution, or do you think it's just a natural progression? Or, do you even care?- Man made emissions, like the vast majority of climatologists. Again, try doing the search and you'll find that this is not really a controversial issue.

Java_man

04-11-2006, 02:49 AM

Does anyone know how reputable the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia is and can this story be verified?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

They are reputable ... however the OP author is not

It is obvious he cherry picked those years because 1998 was the warmest on the record

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gat2005-600x283.gif

There are annual year to year fluctuations but the overall trend has been upward

His claim that this somehow refutes GW is intellectually dishonest

he also says

Thanks to the work of a Canadian statistician, Stephen McIntyre, and others, this (hockey stick) graph is now known to be deeply flawed

Stephen McIntyre is on the Exxon feeding trough and is heavily involved in the Canadian oil industry

McIntyres refutation of the hockey stick graph is at odds with virtually all the peer reviewed literature ... McIntyre is not a scientist and his work was not peer reviewed

hadit

04-11-2006, 08:01 AM

They are reputable ... however the OP author is not

It is obvious he cherry picked those years because 1998 was the warmest on the record

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gat2005-600x283.gif

There are annual year to year fluctuations but the overall trend has been upward

His claim that this somehow refutes GW is intellectually dishonest

Should we not, however, be sure that the warming is indeed continuing before embarking on massive efforts to restructure society? Would it not be better to prepare for possible climate change instead of a Quixotic effort to stop it?

Freedom&Liberty

04-11-2006, 01:58 PM

- Man made emissions, like the vast majority of climatologists. Again, try doing the search and you'll find that this is not really a controversial issue.I disagree.

http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89626

I don't know

04-11-2006, 04:10 PM

I disagree.

http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89626- Disagree all you want, but unless you have something to back it up with, it means nothing. Try doing the litterature search - you'll see how controversial it is.

lilnymph

04-11-2006, 04:48 PM

Should we not, however, be sure that the warming is indeed continuing before embarking on massive efforts to restructure society? Would it not be better to prepare for possible climate change instead of a Quixotic effort to stop it?

So, despire a graph that shows the global warming has been going on for over 125 years, you want to wait a bit more incase it magically decides to stop in the next couple of years for no reason at all?

Sounds like a sensible course of action :rolleyes:

hugs

lilnymph

hadit

04-12-2006, 08:23 AM

So, despire a graph that shows the global warming has been going on for over 125 years, you want to wait a bit more incase it magically decides to stop in the next couple of years for no reason at all?

Sounds like a sensible course of action :rolleyes:

hugs

lilnymph

125 years is the blink of an eye in global history terms. The earth has been warming for longer than that. The reason people like to pick 125 years is that's when industrialization started, but warming was happening long before that. We could easily have 125 years of cooling next and it mean absolutely nothing in terms of when the next ice age starts. So it IS critical to keep an eye on the process. Should we just ignore the last 6 years when temperatures appear to be stabilizing? Perhaps the earth warms and cools on its own and man has less to do with it than we've been told.

PlatyGuy

04-12-2006, 08:41 AM

125 years is the blink of an eye in global history terms. The earth has been warming for longer than that. The reason people like to pick 125 years is that's when industrialization started, but warming was happening long before that. We could easily have 125 years of cooling next and it mean absolutely nothing in terms of when the next ice age starts. So it IS critical to keep an eye on the process. Should we just ignore the last 6 years when temperatures appear to be stabilizing? Perhaps the earth warms and cools on its own and man has less to do with it than we've been told.
So 125 years is a meaningless statistical anomaly, but 6 years is hard evidence that there's nothing to worry about? Thanks for clearing that up.

Freedom&Liberty

04-12-2006, 11:17 AM

- Disagree all you want, but unless you have something to back it up with, it means nothing. Try doing the litterature search - you'll see how controversial it is.There's controversy. Over 17,000 scientists signed a petition. And this is what they signed.

Quote:
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm (http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm)

PlatyGuy

04-12-2006, 11:19 AM

There's controversy. Over 17,000 scientists signed a petition. And this is what they signed.
It's amazing the way you'll just repeat something that's already known to be untrue. There's a lot of controversy about how many of those signatures are actually valid, but the one thing that's certain is that it's not 17,000. The author himself has admitted to figures as low as 2,000.

Score: Reality 11, F&L 0

Freedom&Liberty

04-12-2006, 11:45 AM

Freedom&Liberty

04-12-2006, 11:55 AM

This is a video lecture by Dr. Arthur Robinson. He is the originator of the petition. He explains how the science behind GW is being done incorrectly. The video sucks, but the audio is okay.

http://www.oism.org/oism/lecture/viewer/lectureplayer.htm

Freedom&Liberty

04-12-2006, 11:55 AM

This link is to a couple of dozen articles disputing various aspects of GW and defending the petition.

http://www.oism.org/news/s49p416.htm

hadit

04-12-2006, 12:03 PM

So 125 years is a meaningless statistical anomaly, but 6 years is hard evidence that there's nothing to worry about? Thanks for clearing that up.

That attitude is precisely why this issue is no longer about true science. A scientist is dispassionate about the expected result of his work. You illustrate the polar opposite, because you are cemented into the idea that global warming started with the industrialization of America, is happening today, and MUST continue in the future. Therefore, any data that contradicts that view must be completely dismissed, trashed as coming from the oil companies (which can't be trusted), and ultimately ignored. Here's a link to an article from a scientist who faced this kind of ignorant "science" when he dared to dissent from the conventional wisdom. Please note the following line from the site.M. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. I'm sure many will rush to try and find this guy guilty of some crime for which we cannot believe anything he says, but I think he illustrates a very real problem. Even scientists are human, and many will ride the wave of conventional wisdom to avoid the harrassment that true dissenters receive.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

PlatyGuy

04-12-2006, 12:06 PM

IDK - Pay no attention to PG. He's just pissed because a house fell on his sister. He came no where close to discrediting the thousands of scientists and physicists that signed the petition. However, he believes this link to be the motherload of evidence. I don't think it amounts to much at all since it's just an editorial from a resident of Oahu, but when it's all you have I guess you have to hang on to something.

Here is the source he's refering to

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?579ab1cd-0d69-4a0c-a972-734e9006add7
You're lying again, F&L. I never claimed the Hawaii article was the "mother lode" and even explicitly pointed out that it was chosen primarily for its readability. It cites disinfopedia (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Me dicine) as the source of the "only 2,000" claim, as has also been pointed out already. If you had any interest in the truth, you could follow up from there by yourself.

Score: Truth 12, F&L 0

Corporate Avenger

04-12-2006, 12:17 PM

It's funny hearing some of this nonsense after knowing an actual climate scientist..

I just note that the same people who are consistently wrong about everything believe global warming is a myth.

Freedom&Liberty

04-12-2006, 12:29 PM

You're lying again, F&L. I never claimed the Hawaii article was the "mother lode" and even explicitly pointed out that it was chosen primarily for its readability. It cites disinfopedia (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Me dicine) as the source of the "only 2,000" claim, as has also been pointed out already. If you had any interest in the truth, you could follow up from there by yourself.

Score: Truth 12, F&L 0I don't lie. This is all you presented as "evidence". Disinfopedia is Sourcewatch.org, and we've already learned that Sourcewatch is funded almost entirely by ecology minded foundations. Perhaps if you had done a bit of research yourself, you wouldn't post things like this. But, it's easier to sit back and wait until someone else posts a source, find one little trivial aspect in it that you don't agree with and use that to justify your bogus position that the entire source is bad. Grow up.:not:

hadit

04-12-2006, 12:31 PM

It's funny hearing some of this nonsense after knowing an actual climate scientist..

I just note that the same people who are consistently wrong about everything believe global warming is a myth.

You've been wrong many a time, and you believe global warming is real and man caused. Which actual climate scientist did you know, one that was owned by oil companies or one that was dependent on global warming fueled panic in Washington? Apparently, there are no other types.

Freedom&Liberty

04-12-2006, 12:32 PM

PlatyGuy

04-12-2006, 12:43 PM

I don't lie. This is all you presented as "evidence". Disinfopedia is Sourcewatch.org
So? Regardless of what they call themselves, they - and not the guy in Hawaii - are the source of that claim.
and we've already learned that Sourcewatch is funded almost entirely by ecology minded foundations. Perhaps if you had done a bit of research yourself, you wouldn't post things like this. But, it's easier to sit back and wait until someone else posts a source, find one little trivial aspect in it that you don't agree with and use that to justify your bogus position that the entire source is bad.
Unlike what you called by that name earlier, this really is thick irony. You're complaining about others impugning sources, when you yourself have just - not even a paragraph ago - done exactly that and they haven't. Could the projection and double standards be any more obvious?
Grow up.
I'm not the one stamping my feet and saying "is too" - or the very close rhetorical equivalent - when confronted with facts. I'm also not the one, for hadit's benefit, who's "cemented" to a particular position on this issue and refusing to consider evidence to the contrary. That's the denialists' specialty. It's their nature. Would you guys please at least try, just once, to imitate the substance of mature debate instead of just the form? The mimicry is flattering and all, but parrots do get boring after a while.

soylentgreen

04-12-2006, 12:58 PM

Brought to you by ExxonMobil, the food industry, and the chemical industry.Don't forget the pharmesuticals. Oh, wait, they're lobbying to get the definition of "obesity" lowered all the time so they can sell more weight loss drugs.

Freedom&Liberty

04-12-2006, 01:27 PM

So? Regardless of what they call themselves, they - and not the guy in Hawaii - are the source of that claim.And they proved to be a biased source. Can you claim that 17,000 people were paid by someone(Oil companies, conservatives, earth haters, etc.) to sign the petition? I thought not.

Unlike what you called by that name earlier, this really is thick irony. You're complaining about others impugning sources, when you yourself have just - not even a paragraph ago - done exactly that and they haven't. Could the projection and double standards be any more obvious?
Watch as I impunge your source some more. It's not a double standard when one source so significantly outweighs the other. Despite your attempts, 17,000 is a difficult number to refute. Here is an article about you're Oahu resident- Todd Shelly, who is known for working as a USDA researcher and entomologist at the University of Hawaii’s Center for Conservation Research and Training (CCRT).......

http://www.votehawaii.com/author/stuart-k-hayashi/
It would seem that the credentials of the author of your source fail to meet your own standards.

I'm not the one stamping my feet and saying "is too" - or the very close rhetorical equivalent - when confronted with facts. I'm also not the one, for hadit's benefit, who's "cemented" to a particular position on this issue and refusing to consider evidence to the contrary. That's the denialists' specialty. It's their nature. Would you guys please at least try, just once, to imitate the substance of mature debate instead of just the form? The mimicry is flattering and all, but parrots do get boring after a while.PG you exemplify everything you just wrote.

The fact is that you've presented little if any evidence that contradicts the over 17,000 scientists who agree that GW is not induced by man. Aside from a bug scientist from Oahu and your unsubstantiated claims that the signatures may not have been validated or verified, you haven't really contributed much at all. I keep hoping that you will find something, it would make this much more interesting.

I don't know

04-12-2006, 03:25 PM

There's controversy. Over 17,000 scientists signed a petition. And this is what they signed.- I've seen this before, and I don't care about "scientists" - a doctor in litterary theory can be called a "scientist" (and I see that it's not very difficult to be called that in this petition) - I am interested in climate scientists. And climate scientists agree:

In the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm)), the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted, it was concluded that based on the balance of all available evidence and even considering uncertainties and areas lacking adequate research, the earth is undergoing a rapid warming trend that is outside the likely bounds of natural variations and this climate change is primarily driven by anthropogenic emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel burning.This statement has been explicitly endorsed by:

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciencesin either one or both of these documents:

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
http://www.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13619In addition, the following institutions specializing in Climate, Atmosphere, Ocean and/or Earth sciences have published the same conclusions:

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/)(GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html) (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html) (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm)(SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html)(EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135) (RS)
American Geophysical Union (http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html) (AGU)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html) (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html)(AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html) (CMOS)If this is not consensus, then what in the world would consensus look like?
- http://illconsidered.********.com/2006/02/there-is-no-consensus.html

Freedom&Liberty

04-12-2006, 05:03 PM

Concensus would look independent and wouldn't require peer review, it also would not be funded by the state, ecologists or energy/oil.

Corporate Avenger

04-12-2006, 06:07 PM

You've been wrong many a time, and you believe global warming is real and man caused. Which actual climate scientist did you know, one that was owned by oil companies or one that was dependent on global warming fueled panic in Washington? Apparently, there are no other types.

More BS, where have I been wrong? I've trashed you and the neo-cons in every debate because you guys base your views on things that just aren't true.

He wasn't a shill for the oil companies, or anybody else, so trust what he has to say over people with economic interest in burning more and more oil.

Corporate Avenger

04-12-2006, 06:11 PM

It's funny how everyone pretty much ignores your posts.

Like you?

I wouldn't mind if you flat-Earthers did, I don't care for trying to educate the simpletons.

Freedom&Liberty

04-12-2006, 06:34 PM

More corporate humor?

lilnymph

04-12-2006, 06:35 PM

Concensus would look independent and wouldn't require peer review, it also would not be funded by the state, ecologists or energy/oil.

Why wouldn't it require peer review? Do you actually have any idea what peer review is, or are you going to claim its a way of keeping "true science" hidden away?

hugs

lilnymph

hadit

04-13-2006, 07:59 AM

More BS, where have I been wrong? I've trashed you and the neo-cons in every debate because you guys base your views on things that just aren't true.

He wasn't a shill for the oil companies, or anybody else, so trust what he has to say over people with economic interest in burning more and more oil.

Since we're not supposed to debate the posters, I'll just say "twin towers" and "explosives".

Freedom&Liberty

04-13-2006, 11:30 AM

Why wouldn't it require peer review? Do you actually have any idea what peer review is, or are you going to claim its a way of keeping "true science" hidden away?

hugs

lilnymphScientists who write articles that are skeptical of global warming or it's cause are often reviewed & rejected by scientists who receive funding and grants from those who support global warming.

Link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/01/wglob01.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/05/01/ixworld.html)
Link (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200412%5 CNAT20041207a.html)

I don't know

04-13-2006, 01:02 PM

Scientists who write articles that are skeptical of global warming or it's cause are often reviewed & rejected by scientists who receive funding and grants from those who support global warming.

Link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/01/wglob01.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/05/01/ixworld.html)
Link (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200412%5 CNAT20041207a.html)- Peiser, who is a "senior lecturer in Social Anthropology & Sport Sociology" has, as your first link denies, actually had his study refuted on the net several times, I'll give you a good starting point for finding refutations: http://illconsidered.********.com/2006/03/what-about-peiser.html

You can also see in the comments on this bloggpost (http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000758new_options_for_clim.html) how he himself enjoys using scare tactics much more than any "envirocommie", or FUD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FUD) as the people behind the link call it.

Freedom&Liberty

04-13-2006, 01:55 PM

The point is that science has become driven by politics, funding and grants. Peer review is no exception. There are examples of this occuring on topics other than GW. Oil companies and politicians on the right hire or give grants to scientists who are compelled to come to conclusions that are anti global warming. Eco-groups and politicians on the left hire and give grants to scientists who are compelled to come to pro global warming conclusions. If a group of scientists come out and say GW is natural and nothing is wrong, it gets no news coverage and science journals don't publish the information. If a group of scientists come out and say floods will envelope Europe and ice caps will melt, it gets hyped, covered and published. Sensationalism sells magazines and gets politicians re-elected. The GW community has a financial incentive to keep the gravy train rolling. That's why we need independent sources.

hadit

04-13-2006, 03:47 PM

MILF-in-DFW

04-13-2006, 04:04 PM

This old earth has seen one ice age (what caused that one?) and it thawed out, presumably due to some global warming event. I've never heard anyone explain how they can be certain that the present weather treand isn't a natural weather cycle.

Always amusing that the experts were certain the earth was flat, that man couldn't break the sound barrier and that we would run out of oil and natural gas before the year 2000.

I don't know

04-13-2006, 04:37 PM

Listen, science has always been affected by politics - but this is just such an obvious case, there is an overwhelming concensus on it in the scientific community. Your idea that government funding would somehow automatically, not only bias, but completely change the minds of the scientists from "scientific mode" to "evil commie environazi mode" is ridicolous. Especially when the government is stuffed full of those crazy, hippie, environazi republicans :P

Look, I'll just keep posting from this amazing blog:

But perhaps you would find the opinion of some of the bastions of industry more convincing than those of the pointy-headed intellectuals? BP, the largest oil company in the UK and one of the largest in the world has this opinion:

One of the great challenges facing mankind is the increasing temperature of the planet. This increase is believed to be associated with the production and consumption of carbon based fuels - coal, oil and gas - which all increase levels of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere

(The above comes from here)

Shell Oil (yes, oil the fossil fuel) says:

Shell shares the widespread concern that the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities is leading to changes in the global climate.

(Read that here)

Here is what 18 CEO's of Canada's largest corporations had to say in an open letter to the Prime Minister of Canada:

Our organizations accept that a strong response is required to the strengthening evidence in the scientific assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We accept the IPCC consensus that climate change raises the risk of severe consequences for human health and security and the environment. We note that Canada is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.
http://illconsidered.********.com/2006/02/global-warming-is-just-hoax.html

As for MILF in DFW, you just haven't been listening enough. Here, I'll give you my standard response :p :

there is a dramatic warming that's taken place since the industrial revolution that's on a scale and with a speed that's unprecedented in human existence - this warming can't be explained by natural factors alone (though no one denies that natural factors change climate), but are explained by human emissions of greenhouse gases.

This is widely agreed upon by environazis like NASA, Shell Oil, the Royal Society in the UK, the National Academy of Sciences, British Petroleum and pretty much every climatologist on the planet.

Freedom&Liberty

04-13-2006, 06:27 PM

I don't know

04-14-2006, 07:44 AM

Well, I guess you don't have any bias do you.:rolleyes:- I don't see how this is relevant, but in this case the only bias I can see in myself is that I care about the environment and the long term future of humankind. If you see anything else, be sure to tell me.

Hell, I even emphasise with the parts of the anti-environmentalist movement that aren't snugly tucked in to someone's wallet - it's good to be critical and it's good that people realize that scientists aren't as holy, pure and infallible as some previously thought - and it's good you put your ideas out in public to have them challenged (and I think it's wrong to mock you because of this, as some people do) - I just hope these rebellious souls have the clear vision to consider that the establishment might actually be right on this one.

Sorry if I sound pompous, I just saw boondock saints again :p
If leftists in government or eco sponsored scientists can get government and the people to react, these scientists will reap the benefits through funding and grants for decades to come as studies will have to be done to see if things are improving or changing. They are creating job security for themselves. The anti-GW crowd doesn't have that luxury. - You really don't see what a giftbasket the anti-gw movement is for all the different political parties that have been accused of not caring for the environment? I mean, they don't even really have to convince people, all they have to do is cause doubt and make it seem like there's no consensus in order to make people say "well, if we don't know, we'd better just wait".

Now, you're accusing pretty much every climate scientist on the planet of being deliberately deceptive for the sake of job security - is it really that crazy of me to want you to back that up with something more than the whining of some sports sociologist who didn't get published in Nature?

PR stunts by a few oil companies aren't amazing. Practically every oil/energy company on the planet has a plan to help the environment and protect us from pollution, etc., but they still sell their products.-
But they'd sell more if their products weren't taxed heavily. Why is it that even not nearly all the oil companies have jumped on this?

PlatyGuy

04-14-2006, 07:48 AM

They are creating job security for themselves. The anti-GW crowd doesn't have that luxury.
Sure they do. There's a market for their "product" too, in fact it's more lucrative than their opponents' and likely to persist just as long.

Truth 13, F&L 0.

Freedom&Liberty

04-14-2006, 03:14 PM

- I don't see how this is relevant, but in this case the only bias I can see in myself is that I care about the environment and the long term future of humankind. If you see anything else, be sure to tell me.
"evil commie environazi mode" is ridicolous. Especially when the government is stuffed full of those crazy, hippie, environazi republicans :P
Are you so convinced that GW is caused by man that anyone who disagrees is an "evil, crazy, hippie, commie, environazi republican"?

Hell, I even emphasise with the parts of the anti-environmentalist movement that aren't snugly tucked in to someone's wallet - it's good to be critical and it's good that people realize that scientists aren't as holy, pure and infallible as some previously thought - and it's good you put your ideas out in public to have them challenged (and I think it's wrong to mock you because of this, as some people do) - I just hope these rebellious souls have the clear vision to consider that the establishment might actually be right on this one.
Consider the consequences if the establishment is wrong. Developing countries can't begin to afford to comply with something like Kyoto and it would cost the US trillions to comply. It would change the economy of the world with no guarantee of any positive result.

- You really don't see what a giftbasket the anti-gw movement is for all the different political parties that have been accused of not caring for the environment? I mean, they don't even really have to convince people, all they have to do is cause doubt and make it seem like there's no consensus in order to make people say "well, if we don't know, we'd better just wait".
What's wrong with that? Why should we spend trillions of dollars to maybe lower the temperature 1 degree? GW is based on reconstructed data and inadequate historical data. From what I've read, the computer models that use this data can't even accurately tell us what the climate was like 20 years ago. So why should we rely on them to predict the future?

Now, you're accusing pretty much every climate scientist on the planet of being deliberately deceptive for the sake of job security - is it really that crazy of me to want you to back that up with something more than the whining of some sports sociologist who didn't get published in Nature?
It's not crazy of you at all. 17,000+ scientists signed a petition stating that man was not the reason for GW. Unless you have proof that they received payment from an oil company or a politician, it's about as independent as we've seen so far.

But they'd sell more if their products weren't taxed heavily. Why is it that even not nearly all the oil companies have jumped on this?Because they know the costs involved if they have to comply with an agreement like Kyoto. Do you think Shell and BP's products are safer for the environment simply because they've related to the public that they're environmentally conscious?

Freedom&Liberty

04-14-2006, 03:19 PM

Sure they do. There's a market for their "product" too, in fact it's more lucrative than their opponents' and likely to persist just as long.

Who will pay them if the US signs a Kyoto like treaty?

PlatyGuy

04-14-2006, 03:36 PM

Who will pay them if the US signs a Kyoto like treaty?
The same people who are paying them now - oil and power companies, "free market" stink tanks, etc. The only difference is that they'll be agitating to ignore or renege on that treaty instead of prevent its signing. Oh wait, we did sign it already (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#Position_of_the_United_States). I guess not even that much will change.

Freedom&Liberty

04-14-2006, 03:54 PM

The same people who are paying them now - oil and power companies, "free market" stink tanks, etc. The only difference is that they'll be agitating to ignore or renege on that treaty instead of prevent its signing. Oh wait, we did sign it already (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#Position_of_the_United_States). I guess not even that much will change.A non-binding, unratified signature is worthless. If you're going to play devil's advocate, at least use some common sense. Oil companies would have no incentive to pay anti GW's if the US were bound to abide by Kyoto. However, GW advocates would continue to be funded by the taxpayer for decades to come.

PlatyGuy

04-14-2006, 05:24 PM

Oil companies would have no incentive to pay anti GW's if the US were bound to abide by Kyoto. However, GW advocates would continue to be funded by the taxpayer for decades to come.
Now you're just being ridiculous. It's just as valid to say that GW advocates would have no incentive because they would have already gotten what they wanted, but that's not really true either. The battle will continue regardless. Scientists will continue to study the facts. Anti-science groups will continue to agitate for their clients' interests, pushing for the treaty's overturn, weaken enforcement, etc. There's a lot more money to be made on commercial PR efforts than on government-funded science. Your efforts to attribute motive to the side that stands to benefit least financially, but pretend it's not an issue for those who stand to benefit most, are laughable.

Truth 15, F&L 0.

Freedom&Liberty

04-14-2006, 06:54 PM

Now you're just being ridiculous. It's just as valid to say that GW advocates would have no incentive because they would have already gotten what they wanted, but that's not really true either. The battle will continue regardless. Scientists will continue to study the facts. Anti-science groups will continue to agitate for their clients' interests, pushing for the treaty's overturn, weaken enforcement, etc. There's a lot more money to be made on commercial PR efforts than on government-funded science. Your efforts to attribute motive to the side that stands to benefit least financially, but pretend it's not an issue for those who stand to benefit most, are laughable.

Advocates stand to finacially benefit massively as decades of research would need to be done to see if reduced emmisions actually lower the temperature. I agree that the battle would continue, but after a treaty is signed it would quickly become a legal battle to overturn a treaty or weaken it. One that would require lawyers and courtrooms, not outdated anti GW groups. Although, I can see how a few scientists on both sides would be useful in court, but anti GW coalitions, councils and research groups, etc., would become obsolete. Perhaps a treaty would put an end to the endless fear mongering practices of GW scientists as well. Oil companies can launch PR campaigns without continuing to fund scientists. I doubt that the 17,000+ individuals who signed the petition did so simply to agitate anything.

PlatyGuy

04-14-2006, 07:50 PM

I doubt that the 17,000+ individuals who signed the petition did so simply to agitate anything.
The people who misrespresented or simply made up 15,000 of those signatures were certainly agitating for something, and the fact that the dishonest figure keeps getting repeated is evidence that such slimy tactics can be effective. At this point mentioning it is just a form of trolling.

Freedom&Liberty

04-14-2006, 08:18 PM

Ever consider that they were just trying to put a stop to all the GW hype? I mention it because it is perhaps the only remaining way to get at the truth in an independent manner. Bogus claims of sigs being made up, misrepresented or dishonest are certainly slimy given the amount of proof you've offered.

I don't know

04-14-2006, 08:42 PM

Are you so convinced that GW is caused by man that anyone who disagrees is an "evil, crazy, hippie, commie, environazi republican"? - I was being sarcastic with that comment - those comments (crazy, hippie, commie, environazi) are slurs usually used against environmentalists by the anti-environment lot. I was just being colorful in pointing out that the current US administration is not pro-environment and yet, both NASA and the national academy of sciences are following the consensus.

Consider the consequences if the establishment is wrong. Developing countries can't begin to afford to comply with something like Kyoto and it would cost the US trillions to comply. It would change the economy of the world with no guarantee of any positive result.
What's wrong with that?- The fact that we don't have that much time. Even if we start behaving rationally now, it will continue to get hotter before it gets colder.

Why should we spend trillions of dollars to maybe lower the temperature 1 degree? GW is based on reconstructed data and inadequate historical data. From what I've read, the computer models that use this data can't even accurately tell us what the climate was like 20 years ago. So why should we rely on them to predict the future? - First of all, long term general trends are easier to predict than short term specifics. Like a wave, you don't know where exactly that specific droplet is going to land, but you can see what direction it's going and how fast. That's why the weather report is unreliable, while climatologists are acting much more confident with stuff like this.

As for the models being accurate, judge for yourself:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/images/figspm-4.gif
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm

It's not crazy of you at all. 17,000+ scientists signed a petition stating that man was not the reason for GW. Unless you have proof that they received payment from an oil company or a politician, it's about as independent as we've seen so far. - As Platy pointed out, that survey is rubbish, and like I said earlier in the thread - I don't care what litterary theorists or sports sociologists think, give me climate scientists. Don't bother with finding 17 000, 17 will do just fine :p

Because they know the costs involved if they have to comply with an agreement like Kyoto. Do you think Shell and BP's products are safer for the environment simply because they've related to the public that they're environmentally conscious?- You misunderstood. Why is it that those companies, and several others, haven't jumped on the anti-environmentalist bandwagon?

I don't know

04-14-2006, 09:01 PM

also found this excellent rebuttal of someone making a similar point:

if you're trying to stifle dissent, then you want less funding for climate research, not more. If you're trying to stop global warming, then you want more money for carbon sequestration research, and you don't care how much is spent on climate research. On the other hand if you just love climate research as a really interesting intellectual pursuit, that's when you've got an interest in shedding doubt on the reigning view that CO2-induced climate change is a serious policy program, requiring action. Twenty-five years ago, when global warming wasn't a big public worry, one might expect climate change researchers to hype the problem. In 2006, when public opinion mostly accepts that there's a problem, scientists who want research money should be emphasizing uncertainty.In his second paragraph, Lindzen makes the uncontroversial claim that society sometimes funds science to address phenomena that seem to offer a threat of harm. Using the passive voice, he asserts a feedback cycle between scientific funding and scientific alarm. This seems really odd: the publlc demand made by scientists who are most alarmed by global warming is precisely not that more money go into reasearch, but rather that money go into research to increase fuel efficiency to develope carbon-emission-free fuel sources. In fact Lindzen himself in his final paragraph seems to be calling for increased funding to address the question of climate sensitivity!http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/lindzen-point-by-point/#more-291

Freedom&Liberty

04-15-2006, 02:03 PM

- The fact that we don't have that much time. Even if we start behaving rationally now, it will continue to get hotter before it gets colder.I think we should take time to find out if man is the cause before we completely screw the world economy. A possible one degree change isn't much to get all that excited about.

- First of all, long term general trends are easier to predict than short term specifics. Like a wave, you don't know where exactly that specific droplet is going to land, but you can see what direction it's going and how fast. That's why the weather report is unreliable, while climatologists are acting much more confident with stuff like this.
That may be, but when you have less than 150 years worth of actual data to work with a long term general trend is impossible to predict.

As for the models being accurate, judge for yourself:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm

At this point, climate modeling is still a very rudimentary science. As Richard Kerr wrote in Science magazine, “Climate forecasting, after all, is still in its infancy.” Models, while helpful for scientists in understanding the climate system, are far from perfect. According to climatologist Gerald North of Texas A&M University, “It's extremely hard to tell whether the models have improved; the uncertainties are large.” Or as climate modeler Peter Stone of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology put it, “The major [climate prediction] uncertainties have not been reduced at all.” Based on these uncertainties, cloud physicist Robert Charlson, professor emeritus at the University of Washington, Seattle, has concluded: “To make it sound like we understand climate is not right.”

Models can enhance scientists’ understanding of the climate system, but, at least at this point, cannot possibly serve as a rational basis for policymaking. It seems foolish in the extreme to undermine America’s economic competitiveness with policies based on computer projections about what the world will look like in 100 years. In short, we have no idea what the world will look like in 20 years, or even 10 years.
http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=238162

- As Platy pointed out, that survey is rubbish, and like I said earlier in the thread - I don't care what litterary theorists or sports sociologists think, give me climate scientists. Don't bother with finding 17 000, 17 will do just fine :p

Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals (http://www.oism.org/pproject/a_sci.htm)) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate. Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals (http://www.oism.org/pproject/b_sci.htm)) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life.

This survey is about the only thing I've seen that even approaches an unbiased concensus. You misunderstood. Why is it that those companies, and several others, haven't jumped on the anti-environmentalist bandwagon?Hard to say, but I would guess it's because they would rather fight GW advocates than try to apease a public who will buy their products anyway.

I don't know

04-16-2006, 07:31 AM

I think we should take time to find out if man is the cause before we completely screw the world economy. A possible one degree change isn't much to get all that excited about.- But we allready know man is the cause, also: please demonstrate that the measures we need to take will "screw the world economy", I'm a bit sceptical to that kind of alarmist statements :p

That may be, but when you have less than 150 years worth of actual data to work with a long term general trend is impossible to predict.- Not really, and we have proxy data that goes back thousands of years.

http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=238162 (http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=238162)
- A Senator speech? Now you're not even trying :P

This survey is about the only thing I've seen that even approaches an unbiased concensus. Hard to say, but I would guess it's because they would rather fight GW advocates than try to apease a public who will buy their products anyway.- A geologist or physicist doesn't necessarily know anything about climate. Like I said, find me climate scientists, 17 will do. Or 17 peer reviewed articles that even imply support of the statement in the survey.

Again, you're accusing the vast majority, or at least the most prestigious groups of scientists on the planet of willingly changing what they find according to their wallet, and in a stupid way too, like I just posted:

"if you're trying to stifle dissent, then you want less funding for climate research, not more. If you're trying to stop global warming, then you want more money for carbon sequestration research, and you don't care how much is spent on climate research. On the other hand if you just love climate research as a really interesting intellectual pursuit, that's when you've got an interest in shedding doubt on the reigning view that CO2-induced climate change is a serious policy program, requiring action. Twenty-five years ago, when global warming wasn't a big public worry, one might expect climate change researchers to hype the problem. In 2006, when public opinion mostly accepts that there's a problem, scientists who want research money should be emphasizing uncertainty."

In short, your argument just doesn't seem to make sense. And I think this will become repetetive unless you actually bring something substantial here.

Corporate Avenger

04-16-2006, 07:53 AM

Freedom&Liberty

04-17-2006, 09:30 AM

- But we allready know man is the cause, also: please demonstrate that the measures we need to take will "screw the world economy", I'm a bit sceptical to that kind of alarmist statements :pNo, we don't know that man is the reason. And screwing the world economy is nothing compared to alarmist statements like floods, melting glaciers and new deserts hysteria promoted by GW scientists.

In addition, economist Stephen Brown of the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank compared the estimated costs and benefits in terms of reduced human and environmental harm caused by global warming if the U.S. met its Kyoto commitments. Brown found:
For the United States, marginal cost equals marginal benefit at about 14 percent of the CO2 reduction required by the Kyoto accord.
Thus Kyoto requires about seven times more CO2 reduction by the United States than is cost-justified.
Under pessimistic assumptions, compliance with Kyoto would reduce U.S. GDP by from 3.6 percent to 5.1 percent, representing a loss of $1,105 to $1,565 per person, per year by 2010.
Under the most optimistic assumptions, compliance with the Kyoto accord would reduce U.S. GDP by from 3 percent to 4.3 percent, representing a loss of $921 to $1,320 per person, per year by 2010.
Increase gasoline prices by 52 percent and electricity prices by 86 percent.
Decrease Gross Domestic Product by 4.2 percent.
Reduce personal disposable income by 2.5 percent.http://www.ncpa.org/hotlines/global/pd081501b.html

- Not really, and we have proxy data that goes back thousands of years.

It's inadequate by todays standards. They are essentially guessing and making up data based on tree rings and such.

- A Senator speech? Now you're not even trying :PThe point was that computer models cannot accurately predict what's going to happen. The data they use is insufficient and the variables involved are not well understood. This is what you are basing your entire arguement on and it's very weak.

- A geologist or physicist doesn't necessarily know anything about climate. Like I said, find me climate scientists, 17 will do. Or 17 peer reviewed articles that even imply support of the statement in the survey.
Since there is no where near enough data and computer models are practically worthless, how could a climatologist even claim that he is in a legitimate profession. I've got 17,000 science types on my side. The fact that you won't accept them isn't my problem. They understand how science should be performed and they are essentially claiming that the science behind climate change is nonsense and that an honest scientist would never be able to prove that any climate change is induced by man. I tend to agree and nothing you've posted so far has altered my position. Repeatedly claiming that it's true is not evidence. You're falling for the hype and that's exactly what they want you to do.

Again, you're accusing the vast majority, or at least the most prestigious groups of scientists on the planet of willingly changing what they find according to their wallet, and in a stupid way too, like I just posted:
I'm not accusing them of changing anything. All I'm saying is that climate scientists are working and basing decisions on poor data and weak computer models. I don't find them at all prestigious and I hope that the world continues to ignore them.

"if you're trying to stifle dissent, then you want less funding for climate research, not more. If you're trying to stop global warming, then you want more money for carbon sequestration research, and you don't care how much is spent on climate research. On the other hand if you just love climate research as a really interesting intellectual pursuit, that's when you've got an interest in shedding doubt on the reigning view that CO2-induced climate change is a serious policy program, requiring action. Twenty-five years ago, when global warming wasn't a big public worry, one might expect climate change researchers to hype the problem. In 2006, when public opinion mostly accepts that there's a problem, scientists who want research money should be emphasizing uncertainty."
For me, GW has never been a big public worry because I and many others know that it's based on crappy science. The only reason the public accepts GW is because of the 25 years of hype. Without the hype, they wouldn't receive funding. It's self perpetuating endeavor.

In short, your argument just doesn't seem to make sense. And I think this will become repetetive unless you actually bring something substantial here.I've brought more than enough and you already have become repetitive. You've posted little if any evidence that global warming is induced by man. You haven't proven that computer models or data are accurate. In essence there is no possible way science can prove these things and when they claim to be doing so, they should be ignored.

hadit

04-17-2006, 12:46 PM

Yea, where do people get this crap that doing things to stop destroying the environment will "screw the economy"??? Environmental controls on automobiles haven't destroyed the automakers..

Nothing but a bunch of BS.

The BS is that you can impose massive new sets of regulations on manufacturers without causing massive changes, most of them negative. This is inevitable given that the changes would not only be massive, but immediate. Phasing changes in over time may work. Even environmental controls on cars were phased in over several years. Do you really think the enviro-extremists are going to wait that long?

hadit

04-17-2006, 12:51 PM

A non-binding, unratified signature is worthless. If you're going to play devil's advocate, at least use some common sense. Oil companies would have no incentive to pay anti GW's if the US were bound to abide by Kyoto. However, GW advocates would continue to be funded by the taxpayer for decades to come.

They've learned from the all-out assault on tobacco. Good science (smoking causes lung cancer in many people who smoke) was quickly followed by bad (unfounded alarmism about secondhand smoke). Which had the greatest effect? Acknowledging the obvious fact that smoking kills did not get smoking banned in nearly all public places.

I don't know

04-17-2006, 04:56 PM

And screwing the world economy is nothing compared to alarmist statements like floods, melting glaciers and new deserts hysteria promoted by GW scientists. It's inadequate by todays standards. They are essentially guessing and making up data based on tree rings and such.

The point was that computer models cannot accurately predict what's going to happen. The data they use is insufficient and the variables involved are not well understood. This is what you are basing your entire arguement on and it's very weak.- Using methods that have been proven to be adequate enough. It's not completely 100% accurate, but even taking the margin of error in to account, the conclusion is clear (and is becoming ever more obviously so). For example:

Although each of the temperature reconstructions are different (due to differing calibration methods and data used), they all show some similar patterns of temperature change over the last several centuries. Most striking is the fact that each record reveals that the 20th century is the warmest of the entire record, and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html

Since there is no where near enough data and computer models are practically worthless,- First of all, the economic models you're referring to are much more unreliable. Macro economics is a very inexact science, yet here you are, gleefully and uncritically leaning on those models while criticising the much more certain models of climatology.

Secondly, you haven't given me anything to prove that the climate models are "practically worthless" - and this is yet another example where you accuse pretty much every climatologist alive of lying.

how could a climatologist even claim that he is in a legitimate profession. I've got 17,000 science types on my side. The fact that you won't accept them isn't my problem. They understand how science should be performed- Every science is different. The fact that you understand sports sociology or a non-related kind of geology doesn't mean that you know anything about climatology. Many of the 17 000 "scientists" probably based their decision on the article that came with the petition (that was faked to look as if it was a peer-reviewed publication of the US national academy of sciences)

also:
Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition—one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages.
http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ARTICLEID_CHAR=82851ABA-620D-4CAD-8B00-1604A423EDC

Sound reliable to you?

As for the site Platy linked to that you dismissed with a simple bleating of "biased!", My comments in parenthesis:
When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists."(as it says on the site of the petition) This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists. (which is conveniently left out) The names of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all (again, check the site, this is true). When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls. Halliwell's field of scientific specialization was listed as "biology." Even in 2003, the list was loaded with misspellings, duplications, name and title fragments, and names of non-persons, such as company names. (This is also true, I checked the list back then myself, that's part of why I'm so sceptical now)

and they are essentially claiming that the science behind climate change is nonsense and that an honest scientist would never be able to prove that any climate change is induced by man. I tend to agree and nothing you've posted so far has altered my position. Repeatedly claiming that it's true is not evidence. You're falling for the hype and that's exactly what they want you to do.- I've debated this several times, and checked the evidence from both sides. And I've found nothing to make me doubt the existence of significant anthropogenic forcing of climate. Even you dodged past my initial challenge. Here the link is again if you feel up for it: www.scholar.google.com

I'm not accusing them of changing anything. All I'm saying is that climate scientists are working and basing decisions on poor data and weak computer models.- i.e. you're accusing the vast majority of climatologists on the planet of flat out lying for the sake of their wallets (and how this is to serve their wallets is still unclear, like my quote said: increased consensus =/= more funding. In fact, most climatologists are asking for less funding for themselves and more for fuel efficiency and the like). Why does 0% of the climatologists speak out about this? Are they all liars, rotten to the core and without any sense of honesty?

Do you understand why this all sounds like a really badly founded conspiracy theory?
I don't find them at all prestigious and I hope that the world continues to ignore them.- Dude, the british royal society is prestigious and has been so for several hundred years - whether or not you "find them" to be so is quite irellevant :P

And the world isn't ignoring them.
For me, GW has never been a big public worry- how does that sentence even make sense? :eek7: You =/= the entire public.

Freedom&Liberty

04-18-2006, 01:05 PM

- Using methods that have been proven to be adequate enough. It's not completely 100% accurate, but even taking the margin of error in to account, the conclusion is clear (and is becoming ever more obviously so). For example:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html

"Adequate enough" to predict the future? That's actually pretty damned funny. How can anyone claim accuracy when even the IPCC says the results are inconclusive? Stop believeing the hype.

- First of all, the economic models you're referring to are much more unreliable. Macro economics is a very inexact science, yet here you are, gleefully and uncritically leaning on those models while criticising the much more certain models of climatology.
As you should know and understand by now, climate models are based on best guesses, not science. There is nothing at all certain about them.

Secondly, you haven't given me anything to prove that the climate models are "practically worthless" - and this is yet another example where you accuse pretty much every climatologist alive of lying.
I think they are doing the best they can with what they have. Problem is they don't have much to work with.

An article by Richard Kerr in the September 9, 1994 issue of Science offers an explanation of why: In order for a climate model to have credibility, it must first be able to reliably "predict" current climate. According to Kerr, "nearly everybody cheats a little" to achieve these results by manipulating their models to make them agree with today's temperatures. Some "tune" their models by adjusting the strength of solar radiation; others by adjusting the transfer of energy between the ocean and the atmosphere to get just the desired results. The result is climate models that are largely worthless.

.......

Even modest climate variation like this is subject of some debate among climate scientists. ...

The poll, which surveyed 228 German, 149 American and 35 Canadian scientists involved in climate research, asked scientists to indicate their agreement to the following statement on a scale of one to seven: "We can say for certain that global warming is a process already underway." With one equal to "strongly agree" and seven equal to "strongly disagree," the overall mean response was just 3.3 -- almost dead center. Further, just 3% of U.S. respondents, 13% of German respondents and 23% of Canadian respondents "strongly agreed" that global warming is underway.

The answer to the question of whether or not global warming is underway is therefore uncertain. Global temperatures have risen since the mid-19th century, but available evidence suggests that there has been no significant warming in recent decades and no clear answer to what the future holds.

.....

The fate of billions of people could hinge on the outcome of the Kyoto meeting. But the principal threat comes not from the possibility that the international community will fail to adopt a plan to control global warming, but that it will actually succeed in doing so.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA165.html

- Every science is different. The fact that you understand sports sociology or a non-related kind of geology doesn't mean that you know anything about climatology.But, they do how science should be conducted. And they are essentially stating that the science behind GW is crap.

Many of the 17 000 "scientists" probably based their decision on the article that came with the petition (that was faked to look as if it was a peer-reviewed publication of the US national academy of sciences)Are you suggesting that thousands of super intelligent, prestigious scientists were "probably" tricked into signing because of an article that was included with the petition? If they're that easily duped, then their conclusions should be suspect anyway. Look at the petition they all signed. How could this possibly be perceived as peer reviewed or decptive?

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm

also:
http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ARTICLEID_CHAR=82851ABA-620D-4CAD-8B00-1604A423EDC

I ain't signing up.

Sound reliable to you?No. Scientific American is known to reject all articles against GW.

As for the site Platy linked to that you dismissed with a simple bleating of "biased!", My comments in parenthesis:
When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists."(as it says on the site of the petition) This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists. (which is conveniently left out) The names of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all (again, check the site, this is true). When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls. Halliwell's field of scientific specialization was listed as "biology." Even in 2003, the list was loaded with misspellings, duplications, name and title fragments, and names of non-persons, such as company names. (This is also true, I checked the list back then myself, that's part of why I'm so sceptical now)
PG's link was tied to sourcewatch which is heavily funded by enviromental groups. Out of 17,000 people, you've found descrepencies for only a half dozen. Not only does the website address the things you've mentioned, but how does this prove that the thousands of others are wrong or lying or tricked into signing? We know what the motivation is for scientists who support GW, but what would the motivation be for those against the science behind GW? Follow the money.

- I've debated this several times, and checked the evidence from both sides. And I've found nothing to make me doubt the existence of significant anthropogenic forcing of climate. Even you dodged past my initial challenge. Here the link is again if you feel up for it: www.scholar.google.com (http://www.scholar.google.com/)
What was the intent here? This is just a link to google?

- i.e. you're accusing the vast majority of climatologists on the planet of flat out lying for the sake of their wallets (and how this is to serve their wallets is still unclear, like my quote said: increased consensus =/= more funding. In fact, most climatologists are asking for less funding for themselves and more for fuel efficiency and the like). Why does 0% of the climatologists speak out about this? Are they all liars, rotten to the core and without any sense of honesty?
I'd like to think they mean well, but I also think they want to propogate themselves. The best way to do that is to convince the public that there is a problem, where none exists.

Do you understand why this all sounds like a really badly founded conspiracy theory?
No more so than the decades long conspiracy of GW itself. Stop believeing the hype.

And the world isn't ignoring them.
- how does that sentence even make sense? :eek7: You =/= the entire public.And you don't either. Do you see a signed treaty?

I don't know

04-19-2006, 09:29 AM

"Adequate enough" to predict the future? That's actually pretty damned funny. How can anyone claim accuracy when even the IPCC says the results are inconclusive?- I see from the change of font that you've cut-and-pasted this from some website. May I see it please?

Also, I've seen this argument before, and the quote where the IPCC says something is inconclusive is taken completely out of context. Sufficed to say, the IPCC does conclude that there is anthropogenic warming, and that we knew this well enough to base policy on it.
Stop believeing the hype.- Please keep your sloganizing to the issues forum :p

As you should know and understand by now, climate models are based on best guesses, not science. There is nothing at all certain about them. - All science is based on best guesses. That's how it works, you take the data and make a guess (i.e. a theory) that fits the data. Eventually you reach a point where it becomes reliable enough to base real-world decisions on - but this doesn't make it any less a theory or a best guess.

article by David Rideneur- This guy's only qualification is a BS in political science, which means he's about as qualified in the matter as you or me, plus he's also a member of the NCPPR (as your link clearly states) which is deeeply in the pockets of ExxonMobile (http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=59) - which makes him less credible than you or me :P

The data gathered after 1994 (which is when the text was written, making it even less relevant) has also strengthened the credibility of the models. Examples:

under modeled greenhouse gas warming, the warming at the surface should be accompanied by cooling of the stratosphere and this has indeed been observed (http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html)
as well as surface temperatures warming, models have long predicted warming of the lower, mid and upper troposphere even as satellite readings seemed to disagree. But it turns out the satellite analysis was full of errors and on correction, this warming has been observed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Satellite_Temperatures.png)
models expect warming of ocean surface waters as is now observed (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/275/5302/957)
models predict an energy imbalance between incoming SW and outgoing LW radiation. This has been detected (http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/news/2005/story04-28-05.html)
models predict sharp and short lived cooling of a few tenths of a degree in the event of large volcanic eruptions and Mount Pinatubo confirmed this.
models predict an amplification of warming trends in the Arctic region and this is happening (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/2005cal_fig3.gif)http://illconsidered.********.com/2006/03/models-are-unproven.html

But, they do how science should be conducted.- Not climatology, again, every science is different. The fact that you're formally qualified to collect and analyze data from conversations in a small rural village in afghanistan doesn't mean you're any more qualified than you or me at collecting and analyzing data from a weather balloon :P

PG's link was tied to sourcewatch which is heavily funded by enviromental groups.- Scream bias all you want, it doesn't change the facts. That's why I made comments in parenthesis.

Are you suggesting that thousands of super intelligent, prestigious scientists- "Super intelligent and prestigious scientists" this is going on my quote list :D They even allowed people with only a BS to sign up as "scientists" and, at a point, fictional characters! Several of the people on the list are also nowhere to be found in databases.

were "probably" tricked into signing because of an article that was included with the petition? If they're that easily duped, then their conclusions should be suspect anyway. Look at the petition they all signed. How could this possibly be perceived as peer reviewed or decptive?

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm- Not the petition, the article that followed it.

I ain't signing up.- Googled the quote, and they have it in the wikipedia as well, under the article about that petition.

No. Scientific American is known to reject all articles against GW. - Source?

PG's link was tied to sourcewatch which is heavily funded by enviromental groups. Out of 17,000 people, you've found descrepencies for only a half dozen. Not only does the website address the things you've mentioned, but how does this prove that the thousands of others are wrong or lying or tricked into signing? We know what the motivation is for scientists who support GW, but what would the motivation be for those against the science behind GW? Follow the money.- FOR THE THIRD TIME (and I bet you'll conviniently neglect quoting it for the third time again) this does not make sense. If you want more funding in your field, you want to stress insecurities and inconclusives, not consensus.

In other words: "We don't know yet, please give us more money" makes sense, "okay, we're done now and everyone agrees... so... give us more money!" does not.

What was the intent here? This is just a link to google? - I'll take this as further proof that you don't actually read my posts, but just selectively quote what seems easiest to answer and reply with random pieces of anti-environmental slogans :P

My challenge is on page one or two I think.

No more so than the decades long conspiracy of GW itself. Stop believeing the hype. - You don't understand it, then.

And you don't either. Do you see a signed treaty?- Well, yes I do, don't you? :eek7: