Global Warming?

That was indeed not what I meant by that statement.  It is not a standalone conclusory claim - rather this is the conclusion based on my research of CEI, some of which is summarized in my posts.

CEI is not to be dismissed solely because they get their funding from Exxon and pals, but that goes in the hopper as well.  The real problem with CEI is the crap they spout.

But more on funding - the funding IS important in this case, because if you look at the "think tanks" putting out anti-global warming propaganda, a disturbingly large number of them are heavily funded by oil, coal, and cars.  One or two is a coincidence - when you keep running into oil money every time you check out a liar, then you start wondering, and suddenly the oil money becomes a taint of its own.

And that is my point with the funding - it isn't just CEI, but a whole of bunch of them.

But the main reason you should dismiss CEI, of course, is because they spout lies.

And another important distinction:  CEI doesn't do research.  Scientific research stands on its own, regardless of who pays the bill.  CEI doesn't do science, they do propaganda.  And when evaluating propaganda, funding is very much an issue.

This is particularly true with groups like CEI.  Look at CEI's funding lists and look at the issues they cover.  The overlap is disturbing.  I am not aware of a single issue covered by CEI where they did not receive substantial funding from an industry group that would benefit from CEI's conclusions.


Edited by Peter Parker - 15 July 2009 at 3:48pm

oldsoldier wrote: Funding of any agenda based research from either side of the issue has credibility issues.

Absolutely true, and an extra skeptical read should always be applied when the conclusions align with funders' interests.

But not all interest-funded research is bad - most of it is good.  Scientists as a rule are actually looking for the truth - that's why they became research scientists.

More importantly, we cannot simply lump all claims of science together as "research."  The IPCC reports are scientific research projects.  What the CEI puts out is NOT science of any kind, but pure propaganda.

I will listen to scientists with a contrary view - in fact, I seek them out - regardless of their funding source.  But propaganda is just that.  It is not new knowledge, or even knowledge at all, but intentional spin.

So yes, consider the source of funding, but most of all consider the nature of the information being presented.

From the actual researchers of the science of climate, who have a agenda based belief and then research and then base thier research results to that end, ignoring any counter research results lead to credibilty issues.

This is a rather extraordinary claim that requires rather extraordinary evidence.  Given the number of people involved in climate research, it would take either a conspiracy of 9/11 proportions, or several scientific specialties populated entirely with unscientific idealogues.

You do not get to casually dismiss decades of scientific research by hundreds or thousands of scientists without very good cause.

Since the 70's we have been promised a return to another Ice Age, to Global Warming destroying civilization as we know it, and a following of researchers that ride whichever agenda bandwagon will fund thier research.

And again, this red herring has been presented.  I already addressed it in this thread, as I address it in every climate thread we have, as it has been addressed in countless forums across the world.  THIS IS NOT TRUE.   NOT TRUE.

A couple of scientists making some predictions based on an unproven hypothesis is NOT the same as a consensus-built and well-proven scientific theory.  It matters not that Time put the cooling guys on their cover - Time is not a scientific publication.  Time is not science.

Yes, cooling got a lot of hype in the 70s, but that's what it was - hype.  There was little science behind it.  Global warming/climate change, on the other hand, has a rather significant amount of science behind it.  They are not the same.

And if you are keeping score at home, this type of argument goes by different names, but it is a variant of "Guilt by Association."  It goes like this:  "Some other scientists were wrong about something else once.  Therefore, I will disregard your scientific evidence as unreliable."

It also is not a very persuasive form of argument.

The bottom line is that science is the most powerful force of knowledge we have, and science has shown undeniable results over millenia.  You don't get to just dismiss science you don't like.

The IceCaps can trace climate changes for several millenium, and the heating cooling cycles are present.

Yes, there are cycles and natural changes in the Earth's climate.  And yes, those are accounted for in the calculations.  The current change we are seeing is beyond any cycle or natural change.

 

...even observations of Mars show the ice caps growing and then receding in cycles. And there is not a SUV or industrial base to be seen on Mars.

Ah, yes - the Mars warming argument.  Another classic.  Should have included this one on my list from earlier.  The first response is of course the Mars is not Earth.  Two entirely different climates, two entirely different atmospheres.  To pick out one isolated climate effect on Mars and reach general conclusions about climate on Earth is a bit of a stretch.  Moreover, this warming claim is based only on three (Martian) years of data.

Now, I am not aware of any serious evidence AGAINST solar-based global warming on Mars (or Pluto), other than terrestrial solar measurements (which are rather significant), and it certainly goes into the hopper for consideration.

But here's the rub:  We have a whole lot - a big whole lot - of evidence supporting anthropogenic global warming on Earth.  We have a little bit of incomplete fresh data about warming on Mars.  That means that we do NOT throw out the current global warming theory.  Instead, that theory REMAINS the leading and best explanation for current climate phenomena, while we continue to learn more about what is going on on Mars.

GOOD science involves looking at the totality of evidence, not latching on to one piece of favorable evidence, however weak.

All this research and science is all agenda based and the old addage of "follow the money" should give you a clue on the "desired" result.

Indeed.  And have you followed the money?  What did you find?

Peter, you should change your name to Alan Shore.

Peter Parker wrote: StormyKnight wrote: Peter, you should change your name to Alan Shore. I had to go look that up, but having done so I am curious - is the comparison based on my stunning good looks or my way with the ladies?

Neither, Stormy got confused; he meant Pauly Shore.











I kill me.

Mack wrote: Peter Parker wrote: StormyKnight wrote: Peter, you should change your name to Alan Shore. I had to go look that up, but having done so I am curious - is the comparison based on my stunning good looks or my way with the ladies? Neither, Stormy got confused; he meant Pauly Shore. I kill me.

StormyKnight wrote: Alan Shore is a liberal lawyer.   You're a liberal lawyer.

What's getting old is you continuing to bring up bad old arguments.

Saying that this is unsupported:

oldsoldier wrote: that big heat tab in the sky has more to do with these cycles than man could ever do.

is not the same as saying this:

oldsoldier wrote: ...the Sun has nothing to do with "climate change", and any therory that the sun does effect change is unsupported. My old astronomy professor would also be shocked.

Obviously the sun is a major factor in our climate and any changes thereto.

But this, as well as your next point:

Explain Mars then, polar caps gaining and receding in observed cycles, and only 1 SUV ( an electric/solar powered one at that)on the entire planet (mars rover)

Tells me that you haven't read the prior posts in this thread, let alone made any efforts to confirm what you read on the conservablogs.

The various scientists researching climate change aren't idiots.  They are in fact aware of the sun.  As a result, they have actually included the sun and its behavior into their calculations.  And even so, man's influence is statistically significant - and more than a little.

As for Mars, it is a tad more complex, but allow me to suggest that data collected over the course of THREE Martian years is not exactly enough data to discuss caps "gaining and receding in cycles."

Would you like to discuss volcanos next?

Funny, I always considered America as a world leader.  I wasn't aware we had to wait on China and India to act before we do.

When I get home and am not posting from a cell phone, I will link one of my columns from a while ago. I wrote about my frustration that the ideas of taking care of the environment has become a political one, and my confusion as to why the conservative base seems to be so anti natural conservation.