Jump to content

Home

Climate Change: Are Humans to Blame?


SkinWalker
 Share

Recommended Posts

Also considering that Antarctica's Ice concentration has INCREASED over the past 10 years...

 

January_1979-2009_antarctic_ice_concentration_extent.jpg

Antarctica's Sea Ice concentration. The point is, the ice on the continent is melting. And huge glaciers make their way towards the Antarctic coast right into the sea extending the ice border. Just a thought.

 

 

West Antarctica is currently experiencing a net outflow of glacial ice, which will increase global sea level over time. A review of the scientific studies looking at data from 1992 to 2006 suggested a net loss of around 50 Gigatonnes of ice per year was a reasonable estimate (around 0.14 mm of sea level rise). Significant acceleration of outflow glaciers in the Amundsen Sea Embayment may have more than doubled this figure for the year 2006.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica#Ice_mass_and_global_sea_level

 

 

 

In 2003 the Antarctic Peninsula's Larsen-B ice shelf collapsed. Between 28 February and 8 March 2008, about 570 square kilometers of ice from the Wilkins Ice Shelf on the southwest part of the peninsula collapsed, putting the remaining 15,000 square kilometers of the ice shelf at risk. The ice was being held back by a "thread" of ice about 6 km wide, prior to its collapse on April 5, 2009. According to NASA, the most widespread Antarctic surface melting of the past 30 years occurred in 2005, when an area of ice comparable in size to California briefly melted and refroze; this may have resulted from temperatures rising to as high as 5 °C (41 °F).

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica#Effects_of_global_warming

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Did you happen to notice that person's credentials DE? Need me to spell them out?

Dr Richard Lindzen: Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Science, MIT

 

Seems a rather related field to me. Pretty high up there too.

 

And Ray, do you really want to talk about antarctica's temperatures? It is in fact 4 degrees COLDER than the 60's through 70's 10 year study. Only the peninsula has a higher temp. the remainder of the interior of Antarctica has a lower temp.

Edited by Tommycat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you happen to notice that person's credentials DE?
I did. I also read his article, namely:

 

To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true.
In other words, he agrees with the AGW stance.

 

As for the statements that deny there will be more storms and wilder weather, this is a bit hard to accept when we've observed harsher, more unpredictable weather for years. It's akin to holding a speech at Ground Zero in Manhattan in which you state that Usama ibn Laden does not want to harm the USA.

 

Temperatures are rising (or, in some cases, of course, falling), weather is becoming both more unpredictable and more severe, and ecosystems and climate is starting to change. All these are facts which we have observed for years and years. That humans are contributing to this process, too, is a fact we've known about for decades.

Edited by Dagobahn Eagle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.

 

Nice job parsing, DE. Cherry pick much? :raise:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.
Nothing in this quote shoots down anything of what I've said. The most outlandish claims are bizarre, and can't happen. Things such as Al Gore's nightmare scenario in which all ice on Greenland melts (real science tells us this may happen in... 3000 years). Things like all life on Earth dying out as all the methane trapped in oceans escapes.

 

This says nothing, however, about increased hurricane strenghts, more frequent landslides, killer heat waves like the 2005 specimen that killed 3000 in France, melting permafrost toppling forests and damaging houses, and other real scenarios that are already unfolding around us.

 

Also, it certainly says absolutely nothing about whether AGW is real or manmade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first sentence alone discounts the idea that many of the claims about man's impact on the environment are substantiated by the facts. The second sentence forward dismisses the more radical claims made in the name of AGW. The tenor of Lindzen's article, though, is that much of the claims about AGW are unsubstantiated and amount to fearmongering and political posturing.

 

But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.

 

Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing in this quote shoots down anything of what I've said. The most outlandish claims are bizarre, and can't happen. Things such as Al Gore's nightmare scenario in which all ice on Greenland melts (real science tells us this may happen in... 3000 years). Things like all life on Earth dying out as all the methane trapped in oceans escapes.

 

This says nothing, however, about increased hurricane strenghts, more frequent landslides, killer heat waves like the 2005 specimen that killed 3000 in France, melting permafrost toppling forests and damaging houses, and other real scenarios that are already unfolding around us.

 

Also, it certainly says absolutely nothing about whether AGW is real or manmade.

 

Yeah, this says nothing about AGW

nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred.

 

If you want, I can find a meteorologist's take on the increased hurricane strengths...How about a HURRICANE EXPERT!

 

Gray isn’t shy about events leading up to his memo last year. He says he “went out strong” against scientists who have linked increased hurricane activity to global warming, “and they came back and raised hell about me.” He blasted the scientific establishment, including Nature, for succumbing to dogma and went on to suggest that former Vice President Al Gore is “brainwashing our kids.”
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want, I can find a meteorologist's take on the increased hurricane strengths...How about a HURRICANE EXPERT!
That is the best news I've seen in this thread. So Colorado State University will quit publicizing Gray’s yearly hurricane forcasts guess work if Dr. Philip Klotzabch moves to another institution. Yay, for the pressures of the Global Warming crowd if they are really the ones pressuring him out. Now the insurance industry will have to find another patsy hurricane expert to base their rate increases on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the best news I've seen in this thread. So Colorado State University will quit publicizing Gray’s yearly hurricane forcasts guess work if Dr. Philip Klotzabch moves to another institution. Yay, for the pressures of the Global Warming crowd if they are really the ones pressuring him out. Now the insurance industry will have to find another patsy hurricane expert to base their rate increases on.

 

Yeah, because the insurance agencies would hate to have to base their rate increases on GW predictions of more frequent and severe storms every year. I mean They would have to increase rates EVERY year for coastal residents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, because the insurance agencies would hate to have to base their rate increases on GW predictions of more frequent and severe storms every year. I mean They would have to increase rates EVERY year for coastal residents.
Those evil insurance agents always raising the rates. :rolleyes: Makes me wonder what actuaries, within the insurance and reinsurance industry, are for. :xp: You obvious don’t understand the ethical and professional obligations of an insurance agent. :carms:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, this says nothing about AGW
Strawman. Of course it says something about AGW. It does not, however, state AGW is false.

 

nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred.
He's playing with words here. AGW is not a black-and-white issue - either we're 100% responsible, nor 100% innocent. Global temperatures have always fluctuated, but humans are contributing to this process with our Co2 emissions.

 

As an aside, though, don't make the common mistake of taking the "natural" label too seriously here. Way too many people today have this idea that whatever is "natural" (as opposed to chemical, non-organic, synthetic, or anthropogenic) is automatically good. Couldn't be farther from the truth. Cancer is healthy. A natural crude oil deposit rupturing, spilling its contents and killing thousands of sea birds is a natural event, as is an asteroid impact wiping out NYC. Just that something is "natural", or "has happened before", doesn't mean it's harmless. No one would look at a volcano about to erupt and go "oh, but volcanoes have always been erupting, it's a natural part of life, who cares if our city is destroyed, we're humans, we have the ability to adapt".

 

If you want, I can find a meteorologist's take on the increased hurricane strengths...How about a HURRICANE EXPERT!
What about him? You tell me why I should trust the tiny minority of scientists opposing AGW over the vast majority that does. The arguments about 'more and more scientists speaking out against dogma' conspiracy theory didn't do it when Creationists used it, nor does it pack any weight now.

 

Gray isn’t shy about events leading up to his memo last year. He says he “went out strong” against scientists who have linked increased hurricane activity to global warming, “and they came back and raised hell about me.” He blasted the scientific establishment, including Nature, for succumbing to dogma and went on to suggest that former Vice President Al Gore is “brainwashing our kids.”
Again, this sounds no different than Creationists bashing biologists for being 'dogmatic' about evolution.

 

Politicians and media professionals can be dogmatic. Scientists, almost by their very definition, aren't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scientists, almost by their very definition, aren't supposed to be.

 

Fixed. Of course, scientists are above any kind of corruption too, I suppose. Do you really have such naive and beknighted views of scientists? And if scientists can be "bought" by one side, do you really believe the other side doesn't do the same?

 

Lindzen's point is that whether AGW is real or not, there's been no proof that it has caused any of the harm ascribed to it. He basically dismisses many of it's purveyor's as alarmists who seek to muzzle the opposing side. Scientific apostates, as it were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A little bird sent me this.

 

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen ( b. February 8, 1940) is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[1]

 

He is one of the leading global warming skeptics and is a member of the Science, Health, and Economic Advisory Council, of the Annapolis Center[1], a Maryland-based think tank which has been funded by corporations including ExxonMobil.[2] Writing in the Washington Post, Joel Achenbach wrote that "of all the skeptics, MIT's Richard Lindzen probably has the most credibility among mainstream scientists, who acknowledge that he's doing serious research on the subject."[3]

ExxonMobil dirty name has popped up quite often in discussions on AGW science distortion lately, hasn't it?

 

And if scientists can be "bought" by one side, do you really believe the other side doesn't do the same?
I don't believe that just because one side does something, the other side must necessarily do it, too, no.

 

Lindzen's point is that whether AGW is real or not, there's been no proof that it has caused any of the harm ascribed to it.
Which is flat-out nonsense with no scientific backing. It's akin to saying natural selection has no influence on evolution.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DE funny how you mention creationist arguments.. AGW alarmists have been doing the same thing. They begin with the premise "Global warming is real and man made" They take selected temperatures from around the globe and use them to point out how the Earth is getting warmer. They alter their programs to produce the desired results. And quite frankly much of their data is hidden. In some cases it is fraudulent. A recent example that comes to mind was when they were calling last October the hottest on record. They used Siberian temperatures as the example. There's a problem though.. Siberian October temps were copied over from two months prior.

 

Rapidly rising sea level is another one that bugs me...

 

20 feet by the end of the century. as Gore would have us believe. IMPOSSIBLE says I. ONE foot per century is closer to facts.

 

6a010536b58035970c01156f86d0e2970c-pi

 

Then of course there's the rather inconvenient fact that when the world was at it's height of CO2 production temperatures got cooler(WWII)

 

And of course you are doing exactly what he said. Calling a doctorate in the field an industry stooge. Good job showing why fewer are willing to risk their reputation and come out against AGW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe that just because one side does something, the other side must necessarily do it, too, no.

 

Well, since we we know that AGW alarmists typically gild the lilly for maximum political effect, why must the other side necessarily be guilty of such unethical behavior as well? Funding from ExxonMobil doesn't axiomatically = malfeasance. That kind of claim seems more the tactic of someone losing the argument. It's probably no wonder that many in this country list AGW/GW farther down their lists of concerns when polled. Too much hype and not enough proof. Using achilles "logic", how many of the 9000+ PhDs and over 20000 other scientists that oppose AGW serve on the boards of ExxonMobil and other industrial "giants". Perhaps you can provide such detailed information. Afterall, it's your "side" that contends that all those people are on big industry's payrolls (or just "stupid" when you can't prove the former).

Edited by Totenkopf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using achilles "logic", how many of the 9000+ PhDs and over 20000 other scientists that oppose AGW serve on the boards of ExxonMobil and other industrial "giants". Perhaps you can provide such detailed information. Afterall, it's your "side" that contends that all those people are on big industry's payrolls (or just "stupid" when you can't prove the former).

 

Here's a list to help you

http://www.petitionproject.org/signers_by_last_name.php

 

Might take you a while as there are 31000+ signers to that petition.

Granted you could just start with the 9000 scientists with PhD's

 

But hey, you Global warming guys can feel good about sharing your belief with Newt Gingrich, Pat Robertson, and John McCain

Edited by Tommycat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DE funny how you mention creationist arguments.. AGW alarmists have been doing the same thing. They begin with the premise "Global warming is real and man made"
No. Scientists being with a hypothesis and then try to disprove it. That's an entirely different thing entirely.

 

Oh, and another thought on the "they're just afraid to lose funding" line: are you aware that the scientific field has acknowledged AGW for half a decade? Are you saying that someone, somewhere, has kept the entire field of climate science on a payroll for half a century, so that when the 21st century came about, they could sell electric cars and windmills? I imagine that bribing so many, many tens of thousands of scientists to lie to the public for 50+ years would cost huge sums of dough. Who has that kind of money? The New World Order? The Jews? The Illuminati?

 

They take selected temperatures from around the globe and use them to point out how the Earth is getting warmer.
More dishonesty from you. Of course they're using "selected temperatures", it's impossible to measure the temperature of every square meter of earth. Just like it's impossible for an America-wide survey to ask questions to every single US resident. If the sampling rate is wide enough, however, you get a pretty clear image of rising temperature.

 

They alter their programs to produce the desired results.
Example?

 

And quite frankly much of their data is hidden.
Hidden in what way? I can just picture a scientist going "Eddie, I've come upon a new discovery in the AGW field! But just to be an ass, I'm not showing it to you, nyah, nyah!".

 

In some cases it is fraudulent. A recent example that comes to mind was when they were calling last October the hottest on record. They used Siberian temperatures as the example. There's a problem though.. Siberian October temps were copied over from two months prior.
So you have an example of possible fraud, big deal. There are frauds in every field of science, and in fact every profession out there.

 

Rapidly rising sea level is another one that bugs me...

 

20 feet by the end of the century. as Gore would have us believe. IMPOSSIBLE says I. ONE foot per century is closer to facts.

I don't know anything about rising sea levels, but you're making the mistake of looking at Gore as some sort of pope. Climate science isn't an organized religion. Gore isn't a scientist, much less a pope, and doesn't represent the scientific viewpoint on the subject.

 

Al Gore deserves kudos for popularizing and raising awareness on AGW, but should not be consulted for scientific predictions. I believe I've already pointed this out in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More dishonesty from you. Of course they're using "selected temperatures", it's impossible to measure the temperature of every square meter of earth. Just like it's impossible for an America-wide survey to ask questions to every single US resident. If the sampling rate is wide enough, however, you get a pretty clear image of rising temperature.

Selected as in just how you did. When they have both east AND west antarctic temps which show a small rise in the western Antarctica and a large DROP in temps in the eastern and central Antarctica.

 

Example?

Well erasing the Midieval warm period comes to mind

 

Hidden in what way? I can just picture a scientist going "Eddie, I've come upon a new discovery in the AGW field! But just to be an ass, I'm not showing it to you, nyah, nyah!".

Actually, in some cases precisely that.

So you have an example of possible fraud, big deal. There are frauds in every field of science, and in fact every profession out there.

Yes, fraud used by the IPCC to influence policy.

I don't know anything about rising sea levels, but you're making the mistake of looking at Gore as some sort of pope. Climate science isn't an organized religion. Gore isn't a scientist, much less a pope, and doesn't represent the scientific viewpoint on the subject.

 

Al Gore deserves kudos for popularizing and raising awareness on AGW, but should not be consulted for scientific predictions. I believe I've already pointed this out in this thread.

 

I'd disagree. But then I feel that his overhyped fearmongering is diverting resources from real environmental cleanup into a global waste of cash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, since we we know that AGW alarmists typically gild the lilly for maximum political effect, why must the other side necessarily be guilty of such unethical behavior as well? Funding from ExxonMobil doesn't axiomatically = malfeasance. That kind of claim seems more the tactic of someone losing the argument.
So when scientists agreeing with AGW are hypothetically funded by interest organizations (which ones, by the way?), then it's a sign AGW is false, but when anti-AGW scientists are caught being funded by the petroleum industry it's "not necessarily malfesance". Ok.

 

It's probably no wonder that many in this country list AGW/GW farther down their lists of concerns when polled.
What with 9/11 and the financial crisis, not to mention that many of them believe they live in areas that won't be affected, of course it isn't.

 

Too much hype and not enough proof. Using achilles "logic", how many of the 9000+ PhDs and over 20000 other scientists that oppose AGW serve on the boards of ExxonMobil and other industrial "giants".
Again with the Creationist arguments - "I have a petition in which {arbitrary number here} scientists express their disbelief in evolution!". Then you actually go into the list and lo and behold, every one of them either has a degree from a diploma mill or in an irrelevant field.

 

Perhaps you can provide such detailed information.
Of course I can't. I'm not going to trawl through 3000 names and do a thorough investigation of every single one to see if they really exist, have attended the university they claim they've attended, and gotten the degree they claim they possess. I'm not going to search university records to see who's earned what or investigate the individual universities to see which ones are diploma mills or otherwise untrustworthy. All this you know, which is why you compile and/or post such gargantuan lists in the first place. Publishing huge reports or epic lists of names for then to slam the opposition when they don't quit their jobs and lock themselves in their basements to spend a month of full-time work to debunk it is a common strategy of people peddling alternative medicine, Creationism, and now AGW denial. Same soup, new bowl.

 

Afterall, it's your "side" that contends that all those people are on big industry's payrolls (
Let's recap here: You guys claim that everyone who disagrees with you are bribed by some invisible NWO-style entity. You then put forward a scientist who actually is funded by an interest organization. When I point this out, you not only shake your head and ask me what it matters who does the funding, but also tell me I am the one to say the opposition is part of a massive bribery scheme. Projecting much?

 

I pointed out that Lindzen was funded by an oil company, not that "all those people" are. Unless Lindzen is impersonating all of them, of course.

 

or just "stupid" when you can't prove the former)..
Blatant strawman #2. I never said the thousands of scientists on your list were stupid, nor did I say you were. I'm stating that most skeptics I've come across have turned out to be uninformed on the subject. Not knowing the details of a given subject does not equal stupidity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for tommy's response:

 

Selected as in just how you did. When they have both east AND west antarctic temps which show a small rise in the western Antarctica and a large DROP in temps in the eastern and central Antarctica.
Projecting much? We state the average global average temperature is increasing. You bring up an arbitrarily chosen location and use it as proof this is wrong.

 

You are selecting. Not we.

 

Well erasing the Midieval warm period comes to mind
They... haven't:confused:. No one's saying warming hasn't occurred before.

 

Actually, in some cases precisely that.
Example?

 

Yes, fraud used by the IPCC to influence policy.
The IPCC :confused: ? The IPCC doesn't conduct climate research, but is rather a task force the UN started when AGW became recognized as a real threat, to determine the appropriate course of action.

 

I'd disagree. But then I feel that his overhyped fearmongering is diverting resources from real environmental cleanup into a global waste of cash.
But then again, unlike me, you probably don't live in an area that's already feeling the effects of AGW.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This quote caught my attention:

 

"I'd disagree. But then I feel that his overhyped fearmongering is diverting resources from real environmental cleanup into a global waste of cash."

 

What is the motive of those supporting AGW? Wasting cash? Does that make any sense to anyone at all?

 

Let's play dueling motives. I'll throw out a couple and then we can all tack on more as they occur to us.

 

Potential motive for AGW denial #1 - Don't want to have to change lifestyle. This might not sound like much, but consider the "me" culture in the U.S. that = fuel guzzling SUVs, 50 inch plasma screens in the bathroom AND kitchen, etc. We can't even get people to pay a few extra bucks to change the freakin' lightbulbs.

 

Potential motive for AGW denial #2 - Money. Err...how many hundreds of billions did ExxonMobil net last year? But clearly I'm a cynical bastard for thinking that they might be motivated by hundreds of billions of dollars every year. Obviously anyone that really knows them would agree that they would give up every penny in an instant if they really thought the environment was in jeopardy. :rolleyes:

 

okay there's a couple for AGW-denial. Now for AGW-support.

 

Potential motive for AGW support #1 - Lack of something better to do. I don't really understand this argument so someone else will need to flesh it out for me.

 

Potential motive for AGW support #2 - ???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This will sound harsh, but I divide people into two - those who accept we're causing, or at the very least fuelling, global warming, and those who do not understand the subject. Pardon me, but there seems to be a lot of irrational thinking on the side of the deniers.

 

Hence "stupid". Not a strawman as you try to contend.

 

So when scientists agreeing with AGW are hypothetically funded by interest organizations (which ones, by the way?), then it's a sign AGW is false, but when anti-AGW scientists are caught being funded by the petroleum industry it's "not necessarily malfesance". Ok.

 

I think that it's your absolute credulity about the integrity of "science" that's in question. You fail to show that the man's connection to ExxonMobil has remotely influenced (beyond the typical innuendo) his conclusions, but then dismiss all the "fraudulent" activity on behalf of AGW as aberrations. Funny thing in Lindzen's case is that you agree that he has credibility....but then bitch about his conclusions about the climate surrounding AGW research.

 

 

What with 9/11 and the financial crisis, not to mention that many of them believe they live in areas that won't be affected, of course it isn't.

 

Yeah, guess it couldn't be that people just don't believe you haven't proven the AGW case. :rolleyes: Oh wait, your quote above....guess their just "stupid"

 

 

Again with the Creationist arguments - "I have a petition in which {arbitrary number here} scientists express their disbelief in evolution!". Then you actually go into the list and lo and behold, every one of them either has a degree from a diploma mill or in an irrelevant field.

 

More innuendo and name calling. Very logical and credible arguments. :dev8: Are you confusing your obsession about creationism w/AGW opposition?

 

Of course I can't. I'm not going to trawl through 3000 names and do a thorough investigation of every single one to see if they really exist, have attended the university they claim they've attended, and gotten the degree they claim they possess. I'm not going to search university records to see who's earned what or investigate the individual universities to see which ones are diploma mills or otherwise untrustworthy. All this you know, which is why you compile and/or post such gargantuan lists in the first place. Publishing huge reports or epic lists of names for then to slam the opposition when they don't quit their jobs and lock themselves in their basements to spend a month of full-time work to debunk it is a common strategy of people peddling alternative medicine, Creationism, and now AGW denial. Same soup, new bowl.

 

Must be nice to believe that you can try to marginalize people w/o having to prove anything.

 

Let's recap here: You guys claim that everyone who disagrees with you are bribed by some invisible NWO-style entity. You then put forward a scientist who actually is funded by an interest organization. When I point this out, you not only shake your head and ask me what it matters who does the funding, but also tell me I am the one to say the opposition is part of a massive bribery scheme. Projecting much?

 

I think you protest to loudly and too much. Lindzen is accepted by "your" side of the argument. Skin included him 2x in his references and you claimed above that his position wasn't anti-AGW. But b/c you don't like his conclusions about the process, all of a sudden he is persona non grata. So, frankly, your claim of projection is thoroughly laughable.

 

I pointed out that Lindzen was funded by an oil company, not that "all those people" are. Unless Lindzen is impersonating all of them, of course.

 

I never quoted YOU as making that specific claim. Pointed out that using the "logic" of many on your side of the argument that most of these people opposed to AGW either had to be on the boards or payrolls of such companies. That's a lot of people to have to support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hence "stupid". Not a strawman as you try to contend.
Really? Does this apply to every subject, or just AGW? Am I stupid if I don't know much about, say, the genealogy of roses, or how to tie various sailor's knots?

 

'Smart' and 'stupid' have nothing to do with knowledge in a given field. You can have an IQ of 150 and still know absolutely nothing about the politics of Latvia. You can have an IQ of 95 and be the resident expert on Gordon Setter breeding. Given this, your implication that I think people are stupid just because they are ignorant of the details of AGW is quite strange. I don't know anything about tying baskets, does that make me stupid?

 

I think that it's your absolute credulity about the integrity of "science" that's in question.
Not at all. My credulity about the integrity of science has been backed up by your guys

 

You fail to show that the man's connection to ExxonMobil has remotely influenced (beyond the typical innuendo) his conclusions...
So you've departed from the "funding from organization x = fraud" position entirely?

 

Funny thing in Lindzen's case is that you agree that he has credibility....but then bitch about his conclusions about the climate surrounding AGW research.
Of course I "bitch" about them. They're wrong.

 

Yeah, guess it couldn't be that people just don't believe you haven't proven the AGW case.
Not at all. The concerns below AGW have been proven, too, and are still below AGW. If the economy goes belly-up while you hear not too much about AGW, naturally the latter is going to get reduced attention.

 

Oh wait, your quote above....guess their just "stupid"
Another straw man.

 

More innuendo and name calling.
Pointing out that your argument is a tired old Creationist argument is innuendo and name-calling now?

 

Must be nice to believe that you can try to marginalize people w/o having to prove anything.
Prove what? I was presented a web site listing tens of thousands of names, some of them with "PhD" at the end. Other than that note, the site doesn't even list their credentials, it just dumps me a huge block of text and proclaims in huge red numbers that there are 31,478 Signers!111. How am I supposed to know these peoples' names carry any weight whatsoever? I don't. Especially not when the page doesn't tell me their credentials. It's one big appeal to numbers - "we have more people than you do, hence we're right".

 

You know, it'd have been pretty easy to format the Big Block of Text into a table, with name, signing date and credentials each assigned a column.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...