real science has no part in global warming

[mididoctors]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Right on

there aren't two sides to the GW debate.. the GW debate is a continuation of bi-polar US politics not the other way round

implanting left and right agendas on view points about GW is retarded and is the main source of the controversy..

people choose their belief in GW based on there priori of political ideologies

this debate could be centered around anything.. GW is just another excuse for the two sides to go at it like morons

Boris
london

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I can make a strong argument that the IPCC's opinion is paid for by political groups if we're gonna start playing the connection games.

Lets see it.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Lets see it.

It's really not hard...
UN Climate Summary Designed to Dupe, Critics Say -- 02/02/2007

Some climate researchers and environmental scientists previously associated with the IPCC claim the public relations summary of the panel's fourth assessment report distorts the actual scientific findings and that the discrepancies are driven by a political agenda.

The IPCC Summary for Policymakers, roughly 20 pages long, is primarily the work of political appointees, not of scientists, according to Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric science at MIT.

Everyone is saying the same thing, the summary writers and people involved in releasing the data are politically driven, not scientifically driven. Whether you agree with the global warming (excuse me "climate change") scare or not the people producing the results are heavily embedded in politics.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In January 2005 Christopher Landsea resigned from work on the IPCC AR4, saying that he viewed the process as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound

A Major Deception on Global Warming

In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.

and on and on the political IPCC bandwagon goes...

The IPCC is one part scientific, two parts political. Countering all these dramatic political movements costs money. It is why many people who disagree with the IPCC and global warming (er "climate change") scare are often eventually funded by oil companies. It doesn't mean they're on the take or that their opinions are bought and paid for any more than the IPCC.. if that's the argument you're going to make. Both sides are extremely biased. The truth likely lies somewhere in the middle.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by JaJae

It's really not hard...
UN Climate Summary Designed to Dupe, Critics Say -- 02/02/2007


Everyone is saying the same thing, the summary writers and people involved in releasing the data are politically driven, not scientifically driven. Whether you agree with the global warming (excuse me "climate change") scare or not the people producing the results are heavily embedded in politics.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So a few of the, what, 900+ scientists think that there is a problem with the summary of part 4.

That doesn't invalidate the whole thing. It makes a summary of a part that hasn't been released yet possibly innacurate.


But I guees we should listen to that gentlemen who takes money from oil lobbyists.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

But I guees we should listen to that gentlemen who takes money from oil lobbyists.

Take money from oil lobbyists or take money from government/political groups. Whichever you feel is less corrupt is the winner I suppose. I'm not saying either person is write or wrong here, both sides put together a compelling argument. And both sides are extremely biased. If you want proof that the IPCC can be completely and utterly full of crap, look at the hockey stick graph. How many scientists and political groups were behind that one?

The IPCC has been wrong many times in the past. And each time they were wrong most scientists flocked behind it and political groups supported and pushed it. The media made a hysteria out of the situation. And every time they present new data or new verbage they are attacked by people claiming they're a political body and the information isn't scientifically sound. If and when that's proven true, we can all just keep ignoring it because everytime the IPCC releases new information they're somehow less likely to be wrong? Have they become more or less corrupt since the hockey stick graph, ozone hysteria, incorrect hurricane exaggerations, etc.

Taking what they're saying now without questioning it doesn't seem to make sense to me. They haven't really been right about a lot of important things. When proven wrong they just adjust and move on down another politically charged road. I for one will continue to be skeptic until they are no longer so politically charged and focus more on the science.

[ballz2wallz]

Question...did Tim Ball get his PhD in climatology, and begin denying global warming before or after getting money from HPG?

I think that makes a huge difference, and I think you know the answer.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Question...did Tim Ball get his PhD in climatology, and begin denying global warming before or after getting money from HPG?

I think that makes a huge difference, and I think you know the answer.

Correct. HPG is aiding his research simply because it's a business investment for them to help counter all this global warming hysteria. Just like the Greenies and political groups back the scientists who promote the exaggerations and hysteria. Placing fault on one group and not the other doesn't seem logical to me.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Correct. HPG is aiding his research simply because it's a business investment for them to help counter all this global warming hysteria. Just like the Greenies and political groups back the scientists who promote the exaggerations and hysteria. Placing fault on one group and not the other doesn't seem logical to me.

Please provide some proof that NASA and NOAA are backed by political groups looking to skew results in favor of global warming.

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Take money from oil lobbyists or take money from government/political groups. Whichever you feel is less corrupt is the winner I suppose. I'm not saying either person is write or wrong here, both sides put together a compelling argument. And both sides are extremely biased.

So, in your view, is there any objective reference at all? Everyone is in the pocket of someone, no scientific organization is impartial?

I disagree. I think that's exactly what the opponents of global warming science want you to think.

JaJae, would you care to take a stab at refuting the Oreskes study? I've posted it many times in this thread, and I haven't seen even one attempt at a explanation of those results.

That to me speaks volumes. I'm keeping an open mind, and would be very interested in reading any information that you have that refutes Dr. Oreskes study, or explains why she got the results that she did.

Can anyone link to a report by a scientific organization, a statement issued by that organization, that refutes the idea that humans contribute to global warming?

I can link to plenty that say otherwise, but it seems everyone here has made up their minds that there are no impartial observers in the debate about climate change.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

So, in your view, is there any objective reference at all? Everyone is in the pocket of someone, no scientific organization is impartial?

As in my post, he was likely an objective reference before he started getting money from other people that liked his work. Just because he suddenly gets funding from someone doesn't mean their work or ideas have changed.

The problem arises when people's work, ideas, or views are a direct result of money.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

As in my post, he was likely an objective reference before he started getting money from other people that liked his work. Just because he suddenly gets funding from someone doesn't mean their work or ideas have changed.

The problem arises when people's work, ideas, or views are a direct result of money.

then given by your assessment we should ignore any and all findings, for ang against this issue.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

then given by your assessment we should ignore any and all findings, for ang against this issue.

I don't follow.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Please provide some proof that NASA and NOAA are backed by political groups looking to skew results in favor of global warming.

Don't have to because NASA isn't as extreme as most in the global warming debate. In fact, many at NASA are probably right about where my opinion lies:

EO Library: Global Warming

Effects of Global Warming
Some possible effects of global warming are the inundation of low-lying islands due to rising sea levels, increased frequency of severe storms, and the retreat of glaciers and icecaps.

On the other hand, there are those, some of whom are scientists, who believe that global warming will result in little more than warmer winters and increased plant growth. They point to the flaws in scientists’ measurements, the complexity of the climate, and the uncertainty in the climate models used to predict climate change. They claim that attempting to lower greenhouse emissions may do more damage to the world economy and human society than any amount of global warming.

In truth, the future probably fits somewhere between these two scenarios. But to gain an understanding of global warming, it is necessary to get to know the science behind the issue.

The IPCC doesn't really care about the science behind the issue as much as they care about the political effects of the issue.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

So, in your view, is there any objective reference at all? Everyone is in the pocket of someone, no scientific organization is impartial?

I disagree. I think that's exactly what the opponents of global warming science want you to think.

JaJae, would you care to take a stab at refuting the Oreskes study? I've posted it many times in this thread, and I haven't seen even one attempt at a explanation of those results.

That to me speaks volumes. I'm keeping an open mind, and would be very interested in reading any information that you have that refutes Dr. Oreskes study, or explains why she got the results that she did.

Can anyone link to a report by a scientific organization, a statement issued by that organization, that refutes the idea that humans contribute to global warming?

I can link to plenty that say otherwise, but it seems everyone here has made up their minds that there are no impartial observers in the debate about climate change.

I'm not one to say whose study is more correct than the other. All I can say is both sides present solid evidence and both have politically charged positions. My personal view is somewhere in between. I'm to the left of the anti-Global Warming crowd and I'm to the right of the IPCC.

Both sides have made some absolutely ridiculous claims and both sides have made some reports that have been proven wrong. The global warming hysteria and political groups seem to be wrong far more than anyone else though. So when these people release another report to redefine their view I'm a bit skeptical.

[Pro Street]

I was thinking this on the way to work. Regardless on whether GW is happening or not, or if we're contributing to it, the potential action taken over the issue is a huge benefit.

1) We look for alternative energy sources, such as wind and nuclear
2) We reduce foreign dependence on oil (see 3)
3) Ethanol can be grown by farmers who are currently struggling and subsidized
4) An overall resurgence of conservation

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I'm not one to say whose study is more correct than the other. All I can say is both sides present solid evidence and both have politically charged positions. My personal view is somewhere in between. I'm to the left of the anti-Global Warming crowd and I'm to the right of the IPCC.

Both sides have made some absolutely ridiculous claims and both sides have made some reports that have been proven wrong. The global warming hysteria and political groups seem to be wrong far more than anyone else though. So when these people release another report to redefine their view I'm a bit skeptical.

I'm not asking you which side you personally think is right. I'm asking you if you feel that, on this issue, in your opinion, there are absolutely no impartial observers that a layman can turn to? Everyone is in the pocket of someone else, and there is not ONE SINGLE SOLITARY SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION that you, or anyone, can point to that could be reasonably considered neutral on questions of science? There simply ARE no sources that are scientifically objective, in your view?

Again, respectfully, I disagree.

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

As in my post, he was likely an objective reference before he started getting money from other people that liked his work. Just because he suddenly gets funding from someone doesn't mean their work or ideas have changed.

The problem arises when people's work, ideas, or views are a direct result of money.

Al Gore's ideas and views on the environment aren't a direct result of money, so he's suddenly an objective reference, huh? Can you show me a link that shows Al Gore getting money DIRECTLY from an environmental organization before he held the first congressional hearings on global warming in the 1980's? Or, are you admitting that if there was a scientist that claimed humans contributed to global warming and you found out that he or she later received money from a big environmental organization, that you would let that fact slide and still accept their findings as valid? Horseshit!

That argument is weak on your part, and I think you know it.

Ballz, I've responded to your posts multiple times with multiple links to multiple sources, and you ignored my responses completely. I treated the editorial you posted seriously while you haughtly dissmissed the editorial that I posted with the wave of your hand. Why should I continue to respond to your posts on this subject anymore? Seriously. You've shown a complete inability to respond to my posts in kind, so why should I continue to show you the courtesy? You are not holding up your end of the discussion.

I don't want to be rude, but all of you guys have done such a piss-poor job of arguing for your case and against mine, that I have been forced into the unfortunate and pathetic position of debating myself!

I even tried to debunk the Oreskes study for you.

The Reference Frame: Naomi Oreskes & her study: errata

Originally Posted by Link

The results of my analysis contradict Oreskes' findings and essentially falsify her study:

• Of all 1117 abstracts, only 13 (or 0.1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view'.
• 322 abstracts (or 29%) implicitly accept the 'consensus view' but mainly focus on impact assessments of envisaged global climate change.
• Less than 10% of the abstracts (89) focus on "mitigation".
• 67 abstracts mainly focus on methodological questions.
• 87 abstracts deal exclusively with paleo-climatological research unrelated to recent climate change.
• 34 abstracts reject or doubt the view that human activities are the main drivers of the "the observed warming over the last 50 years".
• UPDATE: among the 34 abstracts, a few of them were found that shouldn't have been included in the group. For one example, see Prometheus (search for Oreskes); the reader is recommended to look at the 34 abstracts whether this error of Peiser's analysis changes the qualitative conclusions
• 44 abstracts focus on natural factors of global climate change.
• 470 (or 42%) abstracts include the keywords "global climate change" but do not include any direct or indirect link or reference to human activities, CO2 or greenhouse gas emissions, let alone anthropogenic forcing of recent climate change.

Boy, that sure shows me, doesn't it?

Uh, wait a minute...

13+322+89+67+87+34+44+470=1126

1126 /= 1117

Please forgive me if I am skeptical of a scientist who can't even check his math.

Even with his flawed math, when you total them out and remove the ones considered neutral, the ratio is still 424 to 34.

That's still overwhelming, and that's from a skeptics self-admittedly errored view of the data.

Interesting followup on the scientist too:

Benny Peiser - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Link

Objections to Oreskes Essay

Dr. Peiser examined the essay by Naomi Oreskes published in the science and society section of Science which reported the lack of dissenting opinions in a sample of 928 peer-reviewed scientific journal articles on global warming. The articles in Oreskes's survey were drawn from the ISI database using the search terms "global climate change," though she originally claimed to have used the broader terms "climate change."
He purported to do a similar survey with different results. His letters [4] were rejected by the editors of Science. A crucial subset of his survey's results was posted and analyzed [5] by blogger Tim Lambert, and Dr. Peiser later conceded [6] that his survey contained some errors, though he maintains that the substance of his criticism of Oreskes's essay remains valid.
Dr. Peiser has recently conceded in a letter to the australian Media Watch that he no longer maintains one of his criticisms, and that he no longer doubts that "an overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous." [7]

JaJae, ballz2wallz, can you, can ANYONE else here who thinks that humans do not contribute to global warming, link to a report by a scientific organization that refutes that idea? I can link to plenty that say otherwise.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

Al Gore's ideas and views on the environment aren't a direct result of money, so he's suddenly an objective reference, huh? Can you show me a link that shows Al Gore getting money DIRECTLY from an environmental organization before he held the first congressional hearings on global warming in the 1980's? Or, are you admitting that if there was a scientist that claimed humans contributed to global warming and you found out that he or she later received money from a big environmental organization, that you would let that fact slide and still accept their findings as valid? Horseshit!

I was under the impression we were talking about scientists that were funded by other groups. What a fool I must have been.

Ballz, I've responded to your posts multiple times with multiple links to multiple sourc