jfuh

The funding that goes to the "other side" would be the same funding panels that decide whom to grant on all other scientific research regardless of; ie the NSF. You have any idea how they decide whom to and whom not to fund?

Have any proof of this?
Not to mention the fact that it's not just the funding panel that'd have to be "dirty" but all through out the ranks including the publishers for the past 30 years.

__________________
The facts and science of the theory of anthropogenic Global warming
If you haven't already - please vote for me

Voidwar

One need not prove a tautology.

Do you have any proof that ExxonMobil funding a study makes it less valid ?

If so, I reckon it will apply to treehuggers funding enviro-science studies just as much. I reckon it will apply to treehugging grant boards granting funds to studies that agree with them.

jfuh

Ahh I see, so you claim so makes it so, regardless of there being proof of at all.


#1 It's not my claim that exxon mobil funded studies are invalid, simply that they haven't had a single validated study on AGW. Proof? Sure find me a single scientific publication on AGW that received funding from Exxon mobil.

NSF is a tree hugging group now? What you've just shown here is how blatantly ignorant you are on this matter.
weak editing job

__________________
The facts and science of the theory of anthropogenic Global warming
If you haven't already - please vote for me

Voidwar

Do you know what a tautology is ?

Do you recognize this one when you see it ?

I just noticed that you are jumping into this thread, and I was reponding to the claims made by another poster, specifically . . .

With his quotation marks, he attempts to discredit their work because of who their employer is. The allegation is completely unsupported.

The board that decides who gets funded definitely has a slant toward believing MMGW before the tests are even run. Just like the lefty slant in the History and Poli-Sci tenure tracks at our universities these days.

Either way, as the below comment shows, you are making this personal rather than responding to my initial question, which follows it . . .

If you can so quickly assume corruption on the part of Exxon, without proving anything, I have just as much basis to assume the same tactics from the other side of the fence, you know, those environmentalists who need for there to be a problem, so they can keep on being environmentalists.

Binary_Digit

Not true. With my quotation marks, I call into question the legitimacy of their "scientist" title when they publish false reports in order to make a buck. And yes, that works both ways - anyone who knowingly publishes misleading reports which aren't supported by facts is not worthy of being called a scientist, regardless of which side of the debate they're on.

jfuh

I was pointing out the obvious flaw of your stated opinion. Environmentalists don't need there to be environmental problems. Do you start wasting energy simply because there's a lot of it? Seems you don't understand what environmentalism is.
Here's a better tautology. Oil companies need to have a mass market in fossil fuels to remain profitable thus have incentive to discredit any information that goes against that profitability.

You should try searching the beginning of this thread then. I'm far from "jumping" into this thread.

As you stated since tautologies need no proof you're being academically dishonest in ignoring the obvious 500 ton gorilla in the room. Let me post it again here.
"Oil companies need to have a mass market in fossil fuels to remain profitable"

Well then I really can't help you there if you feel that science is some how left. If you understood the process you would not be making such an ignorant claim. It is YOU now who are attempting to discredit and without any proof there of. You're attempting to show how the NSF and various other grant boards lean in one direction without addressing the fact that even so that would not change the out come of the science because it would never pass the peer review process. Both researchers that research AGW who come out with conclusions that support and deny AGW get funding, one through the normal routes, the other via the oil and energy industry. Yet only one side has ever published anything in any peer reviewed journal article and produced any credible evidence - the other side has produced precisely zilch. Out goes your funding argument.

Actually I'm rather stating the obvious. You seem to believe that because the funding is tilted in one direction with accusations that you can not support with a single shred of proof other than a flawed premise that the out come is thus guaranteed. It's evident as such that you don't understand and are quite ignorant of the way in which the scientific method works.

Except your premise is invalid. Environmentalists don't need there to be a problem to be environmental. Where as oil industry requires the massive consumption of fossil fuel to remain in business. We call research by Exxon mobil on the issue of AGW - a conflict of interest.

What's note worthy and quite telling is that you're not even making an attempt to argue against the science, but rather ad homenin attack on the scientists themselves - and quite sadly a very predictable and piss poor job of it.

__________________
The facts and science of the theory of anthropogenic Global warming
If you haven't already - please vote for me

Sir Loin

Turns out I'm not going to have as much time on my hands in coming days as I hoped, so we'll keep the topic here in this suddenly popular again thread.

I still find it funny that anyone will claim there is no credible debate about MMGW. This thread adequately disproves the claim there is no debate, and is mighty short of “credible” support for this argument. I did see a link to the IPCC earlier, which means someone in unfamiliar with the issues surrounding that political body. And the problems many “credible scientist” that were listed by it have with the IPCC report. There is the “peer reviewed” argument, which I guess will magically wipe away all doubts Kenobi style. Including temperature records versus Co2 causal claims.

I also find it telling that nobody will address ackyron and his information, which is about the claims versus the actual results in MMGW. I guess it is easier to argue about “sources” and dance around the holes in MMGW due to the Co2 cornerstone argument.

You simply can’t say that Co2 will drive climate, it certainly never did in the past. If the Co2 increases in the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas then the temperature will go up. But the ice core records show exactly the opposite. So the fundamental assumption, the most fundamental assumption of the whole theory of climate change due to humans is shown to be wrong.

But of course we already know that the Earth’s climate is always changing. There is nothing unusual about the current temperature and that the current scientific evidence does not support the notion that climate is driven by Co2, man made or otherwise. There have been many periods in Earth’s history where we have had three times as much Co2 as today, periods where we have had ten times as much Co2 as today. If Co2 has such a dramatic effect upon the climate we should see it in the temperature reconstruction. We don't.

If we look at the climate through the geological time frame we would never suspect Co2 as a major climate catalyst. None of the major climate changes in the last one thousands years can be attributed to Co2. We can trace the current warming trend back at least two hundred years to the end of a very cold period in Earth history, the Little Ice Age. If we look back further in time past the Little Ice Age, we find the balmy Medieval Warm Period. Current thinking states that “warming” is associated with apocalyptic outcomes, in fact whenever we look at this time period we find it connected to riches and improvements in life. This was the time of the great Cathedral builders and Chaucer made reference in his works to the great vineyards of Northern England flourishing in this period.

If we look back further in time still, before the Medieval Warm Period we find a warmer period including a period in the Bronze Age known as the Holocene Maximum. Known to geologist as a time when temperatures were significantly higher than they are now, for at least three centuries! Somehow the polar bears survived these hepsi thermals. Climate variations in the past are clearly and unarguably natural. So Digit and the others, please start by rectifying the Co2 issue, the basis of the MMGW theory, before you start dismissing everything else about it. .

And there are no credible scientists that argue against MMGW? There are plenty of them, many of them listed by the IPCC as agreeing with the IPCC report of last year. Despite the fact that many resigned from said and asked that their names be struck from the IPCC report listing them as in agreement with the conclusion of the same politically driven report. The IPCC is a political body after all, not a think tank. Big Gold Star points to the first person who can actually come up with the number of “credible scientist” that banded together and demanded their names be removed from the IPCC report but were ignored, because the report looks so much better and I guess “peer accepted” with their names on it than off it.

"There is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them and I cannot stress this enough - we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future. That is to say, contrary to media impressions, agreement with the three basic statements tells us almost nothing relevant to policy discussions."

- Richard Siegmund Lindzen, Ph.D.
Atmospheric Physicist
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

SOURCE: (June 11, 2001). Scientists' Report Doesn't Support the Kyoto Treaty. The Wall Street Journal


"I am willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now"

- Richard Siegmund Lindzen, Ph.D.
Atmospheric Physicist
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

SOURCE: (Nov 10, 2005) Two Sides to Global Warming. Reason Magazine



"Solar activity may in the long term affect the Earth's climate. Solar ultra-violet, visible and heat radiation are the primary factors for the Earth's climate, including the global average temperatures, and these energy sources appear to be quite constant on time scales of tens or a few hundreds of years. However, many scientists have observed correlations between the solar magnetic activity, which is reflected in the sunspot frequency, and climate parameters at the Earth. Sun spots have been recorded through several hundreds of years which makes it possible to compare their variable frequency to climate variations to the extent that reliable climatological records exists. We compared the average temperature at the northern hemisphere with the average solar activity defined through the interval between successive sunspot maxima. The more active the sun - the shorter the interval: the solar cycle runs more intense."

SOURCE: E. Friis-Christensen og K. Lassen, DMI, Science Magazine


"In the following testimony I will first describe how a carefully reconstructed time series of temperatures in the Central Valley of California indicate that changes since 1910 are more consistent with the impacts of land-use changes than the effects currently expected from the enhanced greenhouse theory."

Dr. John R. Christy
Professor and Director
Earth System Science Center, NSSTC
Lead Author – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

SOURCE: (March 7, 2007) Sworn Testimony before the U.S. Committee on Energy and Commerce


"We are nearing the end of an extensive study of surface temperatures in East Africa, a place I had lived and monitored the weather in the mid-1970s. Our preliminary results are similar to those from Central California in that daytime temperatures are not changing at all, while night time temperatures appear to be rising. This particular area is of great interest because two of Africa's ice-capped mountains, Mt. Kilimanjaro and Mt. Kenya, reside in this region. There is clearly no doubt that these East African ice fields are shrinking. However if general warming is the reason, it should be due to the rise of daytime temperatures, because night time temperatures are well below freezing already. However, we find little if any warming in daytime temperatures, suggesting these ice fields are disappearing for reasons unrelated to a general warming; perhaps to decreasing cloudiness and precipitation."

Dr. John R. Christy
Professor and Director
Earth System Science Center, NSSTC
Lead Author - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

SOURCE: (March 7, 2007) Sworn Testimony before the U.S. Committee on Energy and Commerce

At the end of the day, just as the last two years of "super active hurricane seasons due to MMGW" were predicted, we find that the Co2 argument is seriously lacking. Which is why I suppose the "subject" needs to be changed so often.

Sir Loin

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh Except your premise is invalid. Environmentalists don't need there to be a problem to be environmental. Where as oil industry requires the massive consumption of fossil fuel to remain in business. We call research by Exxon mobil on the issue of AGW - a conflict of interest.

Please sir, a modicum of honesty and commons sense. Climate scientist on a fundamental level need there to be a problem in order to secure funding. There are many credible scientists who will testify about this matter. There is a vested monetary interest in perpetuating panic about MMGW, then money flows unhindered to climate science studies. The fact of the matter is that tens of thousands of jobs depend upon MMGW now. Deny it if you wish, that is a fact. If the whole Y2K like arguments about MMGW go away so do those jobs.

Then we find ourselves back in the ExxonMobil Research argument. ExxonMobil has contributed to some studies, all of them dismissed on the face of the matter because EM helped fund them (maybe the same argument about the IPCC could be made?) but they do not now nor have they ever made it a part of their business model studying MMGW. They are far too busy employing geoscientist and petrol chemist in the discovery of oil and uses for it. But then as one argues that you should not villanize the scientists who agree with MMGW, nor should one do the same with scientists who disagree with it. That is if you really want to be taken seriously.

Binary_Digit

Sir Loin, you should source the forums you cut and paste from. It's one of DP's rules, some sort of copyright concern.

I find it funny that you still don't know what credible scientific debate is, in spite of it having been explained to you multiple times in this thread.

I guess I should have been more specific in the beginning. I assumed that anyone who'd respond would know what credible scientific debate means. Then I assumed upon clarifying this point that it would not be misconstrued as moving the goal posts. I was wrong on both accounts.

Probably tomorrow when I have more time.

Sir Loin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Binary_Digit Sir Loin, you should source the forums you cut and paste from. It's one of DP's rules, some sort of copyright concern.

Had I actually composed my reply based upon the website you list, I’d give that dodge a thumbs up instead of down. The quotes I listed where not from the website you found as hit #1 on your Google search. Next time a more in depth research might help. Even addressing the substance of the material instead of your outright knee jerk rejection would be something approaching the lofty claims to “credibility” you keep crowing about. As it is I listed the sources listed in my material; did you want to argue those sources are false? Then go at it. You dismissing IPCC members should make for interesting hypocrisy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Binary_Digit I find it funny that you still don't know what credible scientific debate is, in spite of it having been explained to you multiple times in this thread.

Yes there is something funny about the way you argue there is no debate, nobody making the debate is credible and when presented with only a few quotes from books and reports in the public domain by credible scientist, you still find time only to knee jerk them all off.

Much like akyron and his post, which I guess you can’t blithely dismiss as internet fed hysteria, so you just skip them. I mean, you have had days to reply to them now have you not? Why the silence?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Binary_Digit I guess I should have been more specific in the beginning. I assumed that anyone who'd respond would know what credible scientific debate means. Then I assumed upon clarifying this point that it would not be misconstrued as moving the goal posts. I was wrong on both accounts.

I think my mistake was that after our initial discussion I thought you were some kind of man of science, not the typical Net Knee Jerk. Crowing for internet links one minute, bemoaning them when you think you have them being used to support an argument opposite yours.

I composed my response to you from my own personal knowledge and a book or two about the matter. Are you now saying that had I listed a website as “source” for the “source” sitting on my desk, you would what now? Be retracting your entire argument? Right.

You better up your game come tomorrow or whenever you decide to offer up more circular “peer reviewed” arguments. The ground you are covering has already been covered, which I thought a real Einstein like you would already be aware of. That is right; there is no debate, no credible anybody anywhere that does not accept MMGW as “proven” fact.

You run on about listening to "credible" sources and when I list some of the sources and ideas I have found worthy of note you dismiss them. OK, so how about you address the issues brought up, instead of trying to ignore another argument? Which ironically you claim comes from "links" which you call for. I was so wrong about the circular nature of this all huh? Because pesky PHD holding MIT types in the mix just don’t serve your argument well do they?