The Climate Change Hoax

First off Troy. I have been trying to give you some points but it says I must spread them around before I can give you any more So I must have agreed with you someplace else on this forum.

Let me also say I have enjoyed debating this with you and I appricate your ability to express yourself and your opinions without bias to my opinions or my person....Thank you sir.

I think we have both made our points I will dissagree on some aspects of what you have said as Im sure you do on what I have said.

My problem with a lot of the Global warming scare is the policies that are being enacted by governments based on the science.

Ill give an example.
I worked on the "Toga-Core" Science project. Part of the project stated that if you wanted to reduce greenhouse gasses you could use the ocean as a CO2 sink. In coreing the ICE of the Antiartic continint they found that during global cooling there was large blooms of algie in the ocean. Algie eats CO2 and produces O2. As a matter of fact 90% of the worlds O2 is produced in the ocean by algie.

In realising this the scientists of Scripts institute looked at areas of the earths oceans where there was an abundant of nutrients but low life. ( there are several such the Pacific Gyre and the upwelling off the Galapagos Islands )
It was realised that for the algie in these areas to bloom a missing ingrediant was needed...Iron.
So as the Chief Mate of the RV Columbus ISlen out of U of Miami we went out to the upwelling off the Galapogos Islands and seeded the water with imulsified Iron and sure enough we had an algie bloom.

http://www.palomar.edu/oceanography/iron.htm

Skip ahead a couple of decades. Now there are 2 companies that want to sell Carbon credits to companies by seeding hugh patches of the ocean to create the algie blooms, sink the CO2 and sell the credits, under cap and trade.

Noone has any idea what a huge algie bloom in the ocean would do to fish or the worlds oceans but we bang ahead under this beliefe that we must do something about global warming because doing nothing is far worse. I dissagree. To me a lot of what is being suggested nowdays is tantamount to putting leaches on someone to cure cancer.

K9

 

The crux of the matter right there.

 

I'll agree with you that doing the wrong thing just to be doing something isn't a good idea. I'm reminded of a poster my older brother had on his wall thirty-some years ago:

"Don't just do something; stand there!"

Of course, that may have been his offbeat sense of humor, rather than a philosophical viewpoint; the one beside it said,

"Be alert. The world needs more lerts."

Back to the subject: the other side of the coin is that being paralyzed by fear of unknown consequences can be totally disastrous, too. At some point in life, it becomes necessary to take our best shots with the information at hand.

I'm new to this whole thing of assigning points; I've never been on a forum that does it before. I'll have to study up on it a little; I assume they're explained somewhere in a FAQ's section. But thank you for the attempt to give me some, anyway.

 

Follow the money.

 

That's a good idea.



ExxonMobil continuing to fund climate sceptic groups, records show

Records show ExxonMobil gave hundreds of thousands of pounds to lobby groups that have published 'misleading and inaccurate information' about climate change


David Adam, environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 1 July 2009 16.51 BST

The world's largest oil company is continuing to fund lobby groups that question the reality of global warming, despite a public pledge to cut support for such climate change denial, a new analysis shows.

Company records show that ExxonMobil handed over hundreds of thousands of pounds to such lobby groups in 2008. These include the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) in Dallas, Texas, which received $75,000 (£45,500), and the Heritage Foundation in Washington DC, which received $50,000.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/01/exxon-mobil-climate-change-sceptics-funding

Both of those groups, by the way, are right-wing think tanks. I would say they're part of the crowd that's wielding climate change skepticism mostly as a weapon against "liberal" American politicians.

 

Surprise ! Surprise ! Surprise !

Sounds like our "Clean Coal " " lobby " here in OZ
Clean Coal my butt....

 

Grants, grants, grants ad infinitum from our pockets, pockets, pockets...

 

I would say government grants are not generally handed out based on their potential benefits to the bottom line of international corporations. And the widely held belief that governments are funding pro-climate change research as a tool for repression of their citizens is irrational paranoia. As is the idea some manage to hold at the same time, that climate change is a plot by socialists, scientists, communists and liberals to destroy capitalism.

Exxon's grants, on the other hand, are clearly an attempt to sway public opinion and government action in its favor, to maximize and protect its profits. That's why it funnels money to activist political groups and shapers of public opinion, rather than to scientists and researchers.

 

triplespeak

 

Yes. The first two times I tried to post, Firefox told me it couldn't connect. But apparently it was managing to anyway....

I've deleted the duplicate (triplicate?) posts.

 

argument by unpleasant association

Troy, have you ever heard about "reading with charity"? It means that if you think the other guy wrote something stupid or evil or ignorant then your first assumption should be that maybe you are failing to understand him and you try to re-read, assuming that he is an intelligent, decent, knowledgeable person. If you don't take that step and make a real effort at it, then you are going to spend most of your time on the internet going off on people because you don't understand what they are saying.

In this particular case, a charitable reader would understand that "hoax" and "conspiracy" are being used as hyperbole to denounce scientific and government malpractice that has an effect similar to what a hoax or conspiracy would produce. If you don't like the hyperbole, argue against the use of hyperbole, don't take it literally and argue against a straw man.

Your analogy is flawed. A better analogy is that predicting the weather is like predicting the next coin toss and predicting the climate is like predicting the majority result (heads or tails) for fifty flips in the future. The laws of probability are analogous to the laws of physics here, and no one is denying any of those things. What is being questioned is whether there is enough data, computer power, and correct theory for anyone to predict the behavior of a highly chaotic system such as the atmosphere. When someone makes a remarkable claim like that, even when a group of scientists make a remarkable claim like that, you ask for some evidence that they really can do it. And they haven't been able to provide any such evidence. It's all in the "trust me, I'm a Scientist" mode.

Even if they hadn't been monkeying with the data and using politics to keep dissenting voices from publishing, any reasonable person who lacks a religious faith in Science would doubt them. And this is the main point I made which you ignored, preferring instead to engage once more in the fallacy of argument-by-drawing-unpleasant-associations. "Rush Limbaugh is opposed to global warning ... you don't want to be lumped in with Rush Limbaugh, do you?" What kind of argument is that? Even if Rush Limbaugh is the devil incarnate and even if his statements on the subject are hysterically irrational, what does that have to do with me or the others on this list who are making rational points? Nothing. You just want to discredit us by association.

You really ought to know better. Do you want me to make a list of the global-warming alarmists who have blamed hurricanes, heat waves, and normal coast-line erosion on global warming even though the most alarmist climatologists said there was no connection? I won't, because the fact that you have nuts on your side of the argument doesn't discredit what you might say. What does tend to discredit you is the way you keep bringing up irrelevancies like Rush Limbaugh, conspiracy theorists and creationism.

 

Post nr 8, by Hoytedow:
When reputable scientists are bullied into silent acquiescence by the AGW gang, it can be no less than a conspiracy, and a malevolent one at that.

Post nr 10, by Jimbo:
Too bad this is EXACTLY what these emails prove. [that scientists worldwide in dozens of fields are all engaged in some sort of massive conspiracy].

It would take more than 'reading with charity' to misunderstand those two posts, and they're typical of what I see on a regular basis anywhere the subject comes up.

Whether you liked my analogy or not, the essential point of it remains: being able to predict whether it's going to rain this Saturday has nothing to do with global warming or climate change theory.

Not so. There are plenty of reasonable persons who accept their conclusions; doing so hardly requires any 'religious faith in science.'

I'm sorry if you don't like the company you're keeping, but I didn't choose it for you. Nor was I trying to tar you personally with guilt by association; don't flatter yourself.

I was simply pointing out the completely irrational basis of much of the strongest opposition, with Rush and his pinheaded followers as a prime example. If you can make snide remarks about religious faith in science, I think it's reasonable to mention the hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions, whose views on climate change are based on a religous faith in Rush Limbaugh.

I don't see them as irrelevancies; I see them as essential components of the larger debate on climate change, and what the political and social fallout from it might be.

Rush Limbaugh has an enormous influence on the debate in this country, even though he doesn't know his arse from his elbow about the science or lack of it involved; he's attacking it purely as a political subject. And many Republican politicians and candidates are terrified at the thought of crossing him, because they're afraid of losing the votes from his followers. That political reality plays into the debate, whether you like it or not.

Again: a good portion of the anti-climate change arguments I see on the internet in forums of one sort or another, including the gun forum I founded, are based on conspiracy theories and paranoia. I'm sorry if you don't like that fact being mentioned. Again, don't take it personally; I didn't necessarily lump you in with those folks.

And much of the opposition I see to the idea of man-made climate change is quite similar to that against evolution, on site after site after site. It has an intrinsic anti-science component, and boils down to, "my mind is made up, and anyone who tries to change it with facts is evil and part of the conspiracy to undermine my faith."

 

You know, Troy, you are right. On second thought, I have to back off from my assertion that no one is claiming a conspiracy. I was reacting to your exaggerations of a global cabal conspiring to trick the people into believing in global warming so that they can take over the world economy. As I said, I expect that the scientists who push global warming probably believe in it. Also, I don't think the conspiracy is global.

But the emails do in fact give strong evidence of an actual literal conspiracy of several of the top scientists on the alarmist side to discredit any dissenters by preventing them from publishing in reputable journals and by trying to destroy the journal that did publish them. The emails also give strong evidence of a conspiracy (even to the extent of breaking the FOI laws) to hide the data that they used in their published results. The emails also give some evidence (I wouldn't call it strong at this point) of a conspiracy to mislead some unknown audience about their results by playing with the graphs. And finally, the emails give pretty good evidence of activities (I don't know if you could call it a conspiracy) to play with data in an attempt to get it to come out the way that they want.

So the quotes you gave may have exaggerated the scope or the malevolence of the conspiracy, but the basic accusation is sound. Furthermore, it isn't as if the emails were the first indications of these conspiracies. Global warming skeptics have been accusing them of these things for years and trying to present evidence about it, but other scientists have been blowing them off. So it isn't a stretch to say that large numbers of scientists are complicit in these conspiracies, at least by their inaction.

As to Rush Limbaugh: he doesn't have followers; he has fans. He isn't a leader, or a scholar; he is an entertainer and a comedian. He isn't making arguments, he is making jokes. Yes, the jokes have a political point, but so do the jokes on Saturday Night Live and The Daily Show. Rush Limbaugh isn't comparable to Al Gore; he is comparable to Jon Stewart.

When you treat Rush Limbaugh as one of the principles on one side of the debate and try to refute or rebut what he says on his shows, it is like me doing that with SNL or the Daily Show: "Hey, Jon Stewart said Dick Cheney shot that guy on purpose because the guy called him bald! How crazy can you be, thinking that Dick Cheney would try to kill someone in front of witnesses? Anyone who doesn't like Dick Cheney is a blind follower of that loon, Jon Stewart!"

Are people really supposed to take this seriously?