News Top Climate Change-Denying Scientist Found to Be on Exxon, Koch Brother’ Payroll

SouthernDemocrat said:

Read the thread dude. I stated that his work is evaluated by its scientific merits. I then pointed out the similarities of fossil fuel industry interests funding research by climate deniers, and the tobacco industry funding research by physicians that shared their views (or at least were willing to do so for a price). In both cases, any work submitted for peer review was judged on its merits, not the backers, but when you have a very solid scientific consensus, its rather telling when what little actual scientific research that is funded by industry interests is usually deemed as junk by the majority of the scientific community.

Click to expand...

GPS_Flex said:

Deemed as junk by the majority of the scientific community? Which studies are you referring to? Care to list the studies and the basis upon which said studies were, as you put it, “deemed as junk by the majority of the scientific community”?

Click to expand...

Deuce said:

You aren't interested in links, apparently. One wonders why he would go through the effort for you.

Click to expand...

Many writers who are not scientists themselves are trading on the prestige of science and the authority of scientists. References to “peer-reviewed research” and to an alleged “scientific consensus” are regarded as veritable knock-out blows by many commentators. Yet many of those who make such references appear to me to be more or less ignorant of how science as a form of knowledge-seeking and scientists as individual professionals operate, especially nowadays, when national governments―most notably the U.S. government―play such an overwhelming role in financing scientific research and hence in determining which scientists rise to the top and which fall by the wayside.

Click to expand...

GPS_Flex said:

I didn’t ask for links, I asked for a source. You do know the difference right?

If you would like, I can post a thousand links and demand that you explain all of them. You will take the time to answer all of them right?

Now that you have chimed in to support the “deemed as junk by the majority of the scientific community” claim, I trust you will provide support for this absurd claim by SouthernDemocrat. You just owned the comment yourself so I expect you will explain/support it.

Click to expand...

GPS_Flex said:

Here is your first assignment Deuce. Please explain why the author of this article is wrong and you are right about peer review and scientific consensus.

Click to expand...

Evidence from North Atlantic deep sea cores reveals that abrupt shifts punctuated what is conventionally thought to have been a relatively stable Holocene climate. During each of these episodes, cool, ice-bearing waters from north of Iceland were advected as far south as the latitude of Britain. At about the same times, the atmospheric circulation above Greenland changed abruptly. Pacings of the Holocene events and of abrupt climate shifts during the last glaciation are statistically the same; together, they make up a series of climate shifts with a cyclicity close to 1470 ± 500 years. The Holocene events, therefore, appear to be the most recent manifestation of a pervasive millennial-scale climate cycle operating independently of the glacial-interglacial climate state. Amplification of the cycle during the last glaciation may have been linked to the North Atlantic's thermohaline circulation.

Click to expand...

Deuce said:

For the record, you're the one starting this game. If I do this for you, you have to do the same for every link I post, right?

Click to expand...

GPS_Flex said:

I’m interested in your explanation of this study. This really blows a hole in the AGW theory.

Click to expand...

GPS_Flex said:

How dare you set a condition upon me as a requirement for you taking the time to explain the links I post? You are being a total hypocrite now.

Click to expand...

SouthernDemocrat said:

I accept the scientific consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming. I also:

1. Bike to work which is 14 miles round trip. The only time I dont is when its snowing or pouring rain. I have biked to work when it was 20 degrees out and biked home from work when it was over 100 degrees out.

2. Both my wife and I drive fuel efficient vehicles.

3. I live in a smaller home.

4. We have 3 kids. 1 Biological, and 2 are adopted, so we are not contributing to over population.

5. We recycle, garden organically, shop local when possible, and so on.

Contrary to what the blowhards say on talk radio, the vast majority of environmentally / conservation minded people practice what they preach.

Click to expand...

czarboom said:

Co2 absorption rates are up, trees in Yellowstone which keep snow packs in place are dying due to the temperature not getting blows -30 and killed the bugs that kill the trees. Thus floods in America and worldwide followed by drought over the entire summer. The more polar ice we lose the harsher the winters we will have do to spikes in the moisture content in the air. If current trends hold by the year 2050 there will be no skiing below 5000 feet. Worldwide we continue to loose coast line due to rising sea levels. I am not saying that Al Gore is right, he was REALLY REALLY WRONG. But billions of people cant run cars, want more electricity and dump tons of chemicals in our water and still think it’s just going to work itself out.
Food for thought maybe

Click to expand...

Deuce said:

And what makes you say it blows a hole in the theory?
In fact, I'd say it's pretty strong evidence towards the idea that rapid climate shifts are bad for us!

Click to expand...

Deuce said:

You've started some sort of game all on your own and I was never a part of the discussion that brought it up in the first place. Are you hallucinating?

Click to expand...

sawyerloggingon said:

For the sake of argument let’s say man made global warming is fact.

Click to expand...

What do you warmers do in your personal lives to help stop it?

Click to expand...

BDBoop said:

Top Climate Change-Denying Scientist Found to Be on Exxon, Koch Brothers' Payroll | Death and Taxes

Gee. What a surprise.

Now why would they have to pay him ... unless what he was saying wasn't true? Things that make you go 'hmmm'.

Click to expand...

Baltim said:

Not joining in the arguement re AGW, I've done it to death on other forums but just wanted to point out that there's far more money to be made taking a position that supports the theory of AGW than opposing it.

Click to expand...

GPS_Flex said:

Obviously you haven’t read it and you have obviously decided that you are no longer interested in discussing the issue in earnest. The article that you pretend to have read opens with this paragraph:

“The Earth currently is experiencing a warming trend, but there is scientific evidence that human activities have little to do with it. Instead, the warming seems to be part of a 1,500-year cycle (plus or minus 500 years) of moderate temperature swings.”



Are you so lacking in the ability to make your case for AGW that you must resort to such distractions? We had a conversation going on the issue until you decided to chide me for doing something you yourself don’t and won’t do.


If you can’t handle someone who knows more about this issue than you do, just say so and refuse to talk civilly with me but don’t act as if my refusal to explain/refute every link posted by Catawba is the reason you choose to cut of civil discussions.

Click to expand...

Deuce said:

The text you place in quotation marks does not appear on the page you linked, nor does that quote appear anywhere in the paper, which can be found here:
http://rivernet.ncsu.edu/courselock...al., 1997 Millenial Scale Holocene Change.pdf

I think you've mislinked or something.
You linked this:
A Pervasive Millennial-Scale Cycle in North Atlantic Holocene and Glacial Climates

Which is just an abstract and does not contain the sentence you just put in quotation marks, nor does the full paper which I've just linked for you.

Click to expand...

GPS_Flex said:

It was my error. I obviously pasted the wrong link. Here is the correct link:

The Physical Evidence of Earth's Unstoppable 1,500-Year Climate Cycle | Publications | National Center for Policy Analysis | NCPA

Click to expand...

precise relative chronology for Greenland and West Antarctic paleotemperature is extended to 90,000 years ago, based on correlation of atmospheric methane records from the Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 and Byrd ice cores. Over this period, the onset of seven major millennial-scale warmings in Antarctica preceded the onset of Greenland warmings by 1500 to 3000 years. In general, Antarctic temperatures increased gradually while Greenland temperatures were decreasing or constant, and the termination of Antarctic warming was apparently coincident with the onset of rapid warming in Greenland. This pattern provides further evidence for the operation of a "bipolar see-saw" in air temperatures and an oceanic teleconnection between the hemispheres on millennial time scales.

Click to expand...

The black curve and the x- and y-axes are a redrawn version of figure 7.1c from the First Working Group of IPCC Report (Folland et al.,
1990). The y-axis originally had only unnumbered tick markings and was labelled ‘temperature scale’. The red curve is from Lamb (1982: figure 30,
the upper (annual) curve). The amplitude of this curve has been scaled to correspond to that of the black curve. The Lamb (1982) time series does have
an explicit temperature scale, and the best-fit scaling between this curve and the IPCC curve indicates that one tick-mark interval on the IPCC figure
corresponds almost exactly with 1°C. The degree of smoothing for both these curves is unknown, but Lamb (1982) states that the red curve is based on
50-yr means (supported by earlier publications). The blue curve is a smoothed version of the annual instrumental Central England Temperature record
from Manley (1974, updated) including the last complete year of 2007. This has been smoothed with a 50-yr Gaussian weighted filter with padding
(Mann, 2004). The blue curve is plotted with the same scaling as used for the red curve, further supporting the conclusions that the red curve is based
on the same data after the start of the instrumental record in 1659. The red and blue curves illustrate the differences that can occur between a filtered
curve and one composed of non-overlapping 50-yr averages, and also that recent measured warming may be comparable with presumed earlier warmth

Click to expand...