What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Jimbo1490]

As icing on the cake, the Oregon Petition was paid for by the George C. Marshall Institute, which is an Exxon-financed group pretending to be an objective think tank about climate change.

At least there were quite a large number in relevant fields. Have you ever looked at the 'who's who' at the IPCC? It ain't pretty! The current head isn't even a scientists in ANY field, for god's sake!


I still can't understand why AGW alarmists are so obsessed with the ten million dollars over ~12 years that all the oil companies spent on skeptical climate research. Do you realize how small the sum of 10 million dollars is in the context of big oil ? Do you realize that they spent more money on jet fuel flying their executives around during that period? The various government funding sources have all but refused to fund any research that is even a little skeptical of the orthodoxy (while pretending to be impartial) and anyway, NO oil money is in climate research since about 2004, and the 'pro AGW' side of the argument got $1000 dollars for each dollar that the skeptical side got during that time period. Now it has passed $3000 in funding for each dollar spent on the other side.

At the same time, the big oil companies will see exponentially increased profits as a result of the AGW hysteria, which will ultimately drive up crude oil prices and stop expensive (and often unproductive) oil exploration activities. So what exactly is their motive to stop climate hysteria? We're not going to stop using oil anytime soon.

Your complaint about the money behind the Oregon Petition is laughable when you consider the funding behind one of your linked sites, desmog blog (total misnomer as CO2 has NOTHING to do with smog) which is funded by left political interests so not at all impartial. George Soros is a HUGE funding source for various climate research groups, all very pro AGW, of course.

We've been down this road before, ad nauseum; there's probably 50 solid thread pages of who is getting money from whom. The AGW side gets 1 to 3 thousand times as much money as the skeptical side, but somehow that larger sum of money is not a corrupting influence.

In the end, we long ago decided to just stick to scientific arguments and avoid all the acrimony.

Remember when the pro AGW guys used to say that is was all about the science? What happened to that?

Jimbo

 

[ancient kayaker]

As all threads do eventually, this thread has become senile. Nothing new, few facts to check on and no reliable data to evaluate. Opinions, opinions. It's time to close it down.

The debate on climate change has essentially done the same. Rather sad, we'll never know the truth now. Even the liers now believe what they say.

 

[TeddyDiver]

increased profits as a result of the AGW hysteria

excuse me..

 

[dskira]

As all threads do eventually, this thread has become senile. Nothing new, few facts to check on and no reliable data to evaluate. Opinions, opinions. It's time to close it down.

The debate on climate change has essentially done the same. Rather sad, we'll never know the truth now. Even the liers now believe what they say.

Don't be bitter. Exchanges of ideas and opinions has to pass severals phases, even senile phases, why not. If sombody lie, well he will be outcast very quickly, if it's is beleif and report something wrong, somebody else will explain an other view to see it.
A forum is not a class in a University with a talented Nobel Price as a professor. It is just a bunch of guy like you and me exchangind ideas.
And sometime I am myself senile, ask my daughter
Cheers
Daniel

 

[wardd]

there are new facts coming all the time, just on the pro climate change side

 

[hoytedow]

there are new facts coming all the time, just on the pro climate change side

I seriously doubt that. So much data has been tampered with or destroyed one must view everything, including so-called new "facts", with a jaded eye.

 

[wardd]

I seriously doubt that. So much data has been tampered with or destroyed one must view everything, including so-called new "facts", with a jaded eye.

and much more distorted by the anti side

 

[hoytedow]

and much more distorted by the anti side

Please. This is becoming tiresome.

 

[troy2000]

At least there were quite a large number in relevant fields. Have you ever looked at the 'who's who' at the IPCC? It ain't pretty! The current head isn't even a scientists in ANY field, for god's sake!


I still can't understand why AGW alarmists are so obsessed with the ten million dollars over ~12 years that all the oil companies spent on skeptical climate research. Do you realize how small the sum of 10 million dollars is in the context of big oil ? Do you realize that they spent more money on jet fuel flying their executives around during that period? The various government funding sources have all but refused to fund any research that is even a little skeptical of the orthodoxy (while pretending to be impartial) and anyway, NO oil money is in climate research since about 2004, and the 'pro AGW' side of the argument got $1000 dollars for each dollar that the skeptical side got during that time period. Now it has passed $3000 in funding for each dollar spent on the other side.



Remember when the pro AGW guys used to say that is was all about the science? What happened to that?

Jimbo

The difference is that whether you believe it or not, the results of government-funded research are not preordained. Scientists are not told what results to come up with. That isn't to say there's no bias; governments and science labs are run by humans. But there's no particular advantage to a government in trying to prove global warming exists if it doesn't. Life would be simpler and cheaper if it didn't, and the politicians could go right on collecting their corporate donations with a clear conscience.

On the other hand, the money spent by the oil companies (and specifically by Exxon) is quite deliberately and narrowly focused on advertising a viewpoint, rather than on research and collection of data.

The people who created the Oregon Petition did so to get paid by Exxon, not to advance science. There isn't a lick of research or data in it. Their previous client was RJ Reynolds, where they spent years trying to discredit medical research that showed smoking is bad for you.... I don't see how you can possibly equate that sort of blatant whoring with the funding of legitimate scientists.

 

[wardd]

to be science the results have to be replicable by anyone under similar circumstances

real science is independent of the scientist or his politics

science is an explanation of what is and not of what you want

 

[Guillermo]

Troy, dskira, etc,
Please post here ONE (just one will be enough for me) scientific study proving beyond doubt that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are the cause of the XX century mild global warming (not anymore warming this XXI century, I'm afraid).

Cheers.

 

[wardd]

sicence dosnt deal in certainties but probabilities

just like no na will claim a ship is unsinkable, not sense the titanic

 

[Guillermo]

Well, 2+2 is 4 in classic arithmethics, isn't it?
And if we are talking about probabilities, let me ask you then how do you asign a probability to CO2 as a cause of athmospheric temperature, as all recorded historical data indicates CO2 follows temperature, not the contrary. Negative or imaginary probability, perhaps?

Cheers.

P.S. Anyway: Post here ONE scientific study which stablish a figure (even if rough) for the probability of anthropogenic CO2 being the cause of the mild warming of the XX century.

 

[troy2000]

Troy, dskira, etc,
Please post here ONE (just one will be enough for me) scientific study proving beyond doubt that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are the cause of the XX century mild global warming (not anymore warming this XXI century, I'm afraid).

Cheers.

Let me see if I understand you: you want me to 'prove' a complicated scientific hypothesis, that thousands of papers have been written on, by posting a link to a single study.

Would you like me to add a second link that proves the theory of evolution beyond a doubt, while I'm at it?

Hey, why stop there? If I have a couple of extra minutes to kill, I'll see if I can find one that proves or disproves the existence of God, while I'm at it.

I'm sorry, Guillermo. I know this is the era of instant gratification, but some questions can't be settled with just a sound bite or an internet link.

 

[masalai]

OoOOOooooooOoOoOOoOOoOOWOWOOWoWOwoOwoOWooswo

So who has pissed the furtherest? does it really matter? Neither side has a definitive answer or cause... Normal changes occur, extremes cannot be predicted with timeline accuracy long term...

It is a good policy to refrain from polluting, (leaving a bloody big mess for others to clean up), and any pollution that is there should be encouraged to be cleaned up and recycled or rendered less damaging - That is just common sense, and common sense seems to be a lacking element in all too much human activity...