What Do We Think About Climate Change

Boston,
It speaks volumes that you are just now looking for my position. To me that indicates a proclivity towards a habit of cut and paste with little actual comprehension of the material magically lifted and placed via mouse. I do not mean to insinuate that the apparent level of comprehension is an indication of the ability to grasp the material but rather a product of eagerness and haste to reply. Much like having a conversation with someone who is not actually listening to what you are saying but is waiting for a break in the conversation to jump in and begin talking.

To engage a man in debate who has not made the effort to even listen to the opposing view is utter folly. To then be disparaged for those views is a bit insulting if one was to take the matter seriously. I don't, your pattern is readily apparent and I realize is not directed towards me in a specific fashion but rather is a general approach. I don't really detect anything personal in it.

The simplest thing to do would be to restate my position. After 50 or so intervening posts I am however loathe to do your homework for you. My bad.

Your time would be better spent at posts 5118 and 5121 if you are sincere in trying to catch up. Follow the link. It deals not with an alternative theory but rather professionalism, propriety, transparency, and the scientific method.

In any discussion of a scientific nature I think to myself What would Richard Feynman say?

 

leaving off the family history or that Feynman was a friend of the family
I can imagine he would get a laugh out of the transparency of the attempts to avoid defining your position clearly
that and expecting anyone to root through 5000 posts simply to define the particulars of another denialist view
both pretty darn funny when you think about it

by the way neither of the posts you mentioned define your position on Rapid Global Climate Change
if you are not interested in making a clear statement thats ok but you can hardly expect to get a quality debate by insisting on an maintaining ambiguous position

I notice in the last half dozen or so posts you are all about the importance of your individual view yet seem remarkably hesitant to actually state that view
any particular reason you are claiming that you have made your position clear
yet refuse to do so again or at least point out where you may have defined yourself in the past.

it would seem as though you are avoiding an analysis of your position

cheers
B

 

So, if I am not mistake, this is your position:

Caught red-handed determined to influence the public opinion is ConocoPhillips:

A deeper look into the firm Hunton & Williams produces this tidbit:

 

And now for the irrefutable evidence- Jim Bowles, president of ConocoPhillips Alaska, recorded by the FBI trying to actively kill environmental regulation. Lets listen (er, read):

 

Now, a lot of scientists who are publishing anti-AGW papers (still only a handful out of the thousands of scientists researching this) are being paid by these same people. That is a little corrupt, wouldn't you say? In my opinion, this is worse than the Japanese killing 1,000 whales for "scientific research" all to produce a single paper declaring that "some whales eat fish".

 

Yes he was, a strange coincidence he was a friend of your family. But besides being a joker he was an independant thinker in the truest sense of the word, not swayed by concensus. He didn't solve the Challenger mystery by following concensus. Something to keep in mind.

You're obviously been exposed to education but in formal debate you'd get your clock cleaned. In formal debate the ability to understand and address your opponents points is paramount. You can't get away with scoffing and name calling. Strawmen don't cut it. It's an exercise in logic and reason.

You may think Feynman would laugh at me but from what I have read of his he would not be laughing with you. What do you suppose his opinion would be about the activities and attitudes exposed at East Anglia?

 

a good example indeed but I dont thing anyone need dignify the work of thieves with any form of rebuttal whatsoever

there is a prescribed process by which scientific work is reviewed and any deviation from that process is far more likely to result in lesser quality work than higher

I am almost ready to present a paper of my own and although its content is all based on known work cited and reviewed I am apprehensive that the subject mater will put off the panel

its the risk you take when you develop new ideas

I have another I am working on that should pas muster no problem but still its a flip of the coin to some degree

either way I would not have a lowering of standards nor would I stoop so low as to steal in order to get my work passed

answering the questions raised by thieves is hardly worthy of the scientific process even if it is a rhetorical rebuttal questioning who is the greater thief

well done I might add though
although again I question dignifying the wild claims made by thieves with any form of rebuttal other than to ask whether they have been caught yet or are they still on the run

 

Spear,
You're close, at this point close enough. What is the purpose of the 10 paragraphs or so in several posts that follow your quote of mine? None of the actions you mention have any bearing on the behavior of the East Anglician scientists or the chastising they received by the Institute of Physics.

 

again you are avoiding positioning yourself clearly for a debate that you seem far more eager to avoid than one you seem able to enter honestly

oh
I was on the debating team for years and did quite well thank you

as for old Doc Feynman all I can say is he was a great guy and I miss him.
beyond that I'd prefer to let him rest in piece

any chance you will be stating your position on Rapid Global Climate Change any time soon

or are you going to go on and on about what is most likely fudged data collected by thieves in hiding
great source by the way
after all that about getting my clock cleaned in a formal debate here you are trying to pass off the work of thieves rather than anything that made it through a review process
good plan
that would win you a formal debate in a flash now wouldn't it

sure it would

wanna step it up a notch and actually state your position clearly
cause if you want to see formal debating style your going to have to

or does your entire ambiguous argument really revolve around the word of thieves rather than the work of tens of thousands of honest scientists


I

 

You say East Anglia CRU was caught red-handed circumventing the scientific process/peer review, deliberately trying to influence people to accept AGW. This, following your logic, means that any data produced by CRU has no credibility to publish their findings in regards to AGW. I accept that little point as fact for the sake of moving forward.

So we don't have CRU anymore, We still have GISS, NOAA/NDBC, and many other 100% independent scientists drawing the same conclusions as CRU using vastly different techniques and data sets. Therefore, the loss of any single dataset will do little to change the science behind AGW or Abrupt Global Climate Change.

Now, on to the examples with ConocoPhillips. They actively pay scientists to publish studies that directly contradict studies done by other scientists, without using the same processes or methods that the original conclusions drew from. This is purely to introduce doubt in the public mind; the public doesn't see the difference between one paper written and reviewed by hundreds of people and one paper written and reviewed by a few scientists all payed by the same company.
They hired a lobbying firm most well known for its anti-environmental stance. They paid off justices and lawmakers to lessen any legislation that was pro-environment. Basically, ConocoPhillips has 0 credibility when it comes to climate change science. By extension, the papers they sponsor should not be taken seriously. The goal of the papers is quite clear, and in many cases, The execs of major oil companies have been caught with evidence that clearly demonstrates their drive to kill AGW theory, no matter the cost.

 

Boston,
Theft in this case is a redherring. How the behavior of the scientists at East Anglia was exposed has no bearing on what that behavior was. The two issues are unrelated. You may be offended by HOW they were exposed, I am offended by WHAT they were exposed doing.

It is gratuitous of me to bring this up, but for what it is worth several of the East Anglicians may be brought up on charges related to their repeated violations of British law regarding FOI requests, all in an effort to render opaque what should be transparent.

 

we dont know that is what there behavior is
all we know is that several thieves stole something and are making claims
and your thrilled to be taking the word of thieves if it supports your view

speaks volumes to your level of credibility

might be gratuitous of me but Im sure internet theft of intellectual property is as much of a crime in England as it is here

any particular reason another post has gone by and yet still you refuse to state your position clearly

Spear
no amount of logic is going to sway the basic denier
they simply deny

the fact that its obvious that industry is involved in a massive PR campaign to dis-inform the public is clear
hell there is a whole study named after it

Agnotology

but this will make no difference to the deniers as they turn a blind eye to all that does not agree with there position

yet instead they take the word of thieves and attempt to build an entire case out of what amounts to allegations as yet unproven or even legitimized by detailed analysis

fact is
the logic of science wont sway the religion of denial
no mater how solid or obvious the data is

thats one reason virtually no denier has been brave enough to actually state clearly there position

including and most notably of late Wally
who is obviously not going to state his position
has not done so before
and refuses to do so time and again

 

I have been following the debate on Climate Change with some interest. I do believe the climate is changing, it always has, and always will. What I don't believe is the human influence, at least in the scale what is being claimed. There is still much to research, water wapor being one, it aint on any of the official climate models I've seen so far. If it has the effect (even part of it) claimed by some researchers, the human influence on climate change is going to become pretty much nonexistent.

As for the effects of changes in the climate. Earth and nature will adapt as it always has, the only ones really effected are us humans. And thats because we've forgotten (or want to forget) that we are still inferior to natures forces. Just one example: building under sealevel, common sense tells its really stupid, yet it is done. When the event comes that was not taken into account in the design of the walls keeping back the sea, we have one disaster more in the books of history.

 

you might want to watch this film
and then take a look at the data

 

Spear,

"This, following your logic, means that any data produced by CRU has no credibility to publish their findings in regards to AGW. "

No, it means that the credibility of the work in question has been compromised
and needs to be done again in a forthright and transparent fashion. Until that has been done, the validity of that work and any other work that rests upon it is in question.

In light of the surprising behavior brought to light at East Anglia, prudence would dictate that all of the work done on the subject everywhere be vetted. Trust once violated cannot be regained unless it is earned.