real science has no part in global warming

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

The only people who can speak for scientific consensus are conservatives that decide when "all the science is in" apparently?

The only people who can speak for scientific consensus are liberals that decide when 'all the science is in' apparently?

Not all GW skeptics are conservatives.

It's obvious not all the science is in.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

I simply find it incredibly "convenient" that the very few who actually disagree with the scientific consensus are funded by the energy industry. I'd like to see a list of them who aren't that are well published and respected in a field related to Climatology.

It's also interesting that most of them aren't very distinguished in a related field and haven't been published anywhere peer reviewed. Isn't the mantra "Publish or Perish" in the world of academia?

I'd wager there's less than 20 without connections to the oil industry, and of those 20 I'd wager less than half are well published in a related field, and of that half I'd bet not many of those are well respected in the community because of the absurdity of their claims and the shoddy nature of their research methods.

Of those few, maybe one of them is the next Galileo who has stunning insights that the rest of the what, 2500? scientists somehow overlooked when coming to their conclusion in the IPCC report, but somehow I doubt it.

I really have to sit back and laugh at the absurd hero-worship of these skeptics who's credibility in any other situation would be ridiculed.. But because certain people want to make it a partisan political issue they obvious is overlooked in favor of the party line.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You're placing wagers on what?

You're saying this, knowing that there are skeptics (professors) at MIT?

[motivez]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You're placing wagers on what?

You're saying this, knowing that there are skeptics (professors) at MIT?

But you do?

Last time I checked you didn't have a degree in Climatology or a related field.. Any 3rd grader can google for opinion articles made by global warming skeptics and post them as some sort of evidence, and so far that's all you've done. It's not terribly impressive.

Like I said either earlier in this thread or some other thread, there's a lot of comments out there by people who don't buy it, but there seems to be a lack of published and peer reviewed research on the matter by those same individuals.

Also, someone who is a global warming skeptic being at MIT doesn't automatically prove anything, and it doesn't disprove what I said, so I'm not sure what kind of point you were attempting (and failed) to make.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

The only people who can speak for scientific consensus are liberals that decide when 'all the science is in' apparently?

Not all GW skeptics are conservatives.

It's obvious not all the science is in.

And I've admitted as much earlier in the thread, I fully concede it's not a full picture, but it's the best we have right now. I haven't seen any of these skeptics present anything meaningful to the contrary besides their tainted opinion, so until there's some evidence, I go with the people who know what they're talking about and have actually published research on the matter.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by mididoctors

about PJ...

Known funding includes $49,000 from German Coal Mining Association, $15,000 from Edison Electric Institute and $40,000 from Cyprus Minerals Company, an early supporter of People for the West, a "wise use" group. He recieved $63,000 for research on global climate change from Western Fuels Association, above and beyond the undisclosed amount he is paid for the World Climate Report/Review. According to Harper's magazine, Michaels has recieved over $115,000 over the past four years from coal and oil interests.

motivez has a point IMO

Boris
London

Thanks

Like I said, it's people who try to make it into a partisan political issue that tend to overlook the obvious factors that would make them discount people's opinion on other issues.

I don't think it's a partisan issue at all, I think it transcends it. Like I posted earlier, I don't really even care if the science is wrong at this point because the benefits of allowing this movement to take hold can greatly benefit our nation if done correctly.

People who are more interested in the game of political "gotcha" can continue spending all their time on whether or not it's right. Cleaning up the environment, saving money on energy bills, reducing our dependence on foreign oil, more fuel efficient cars, etc.. it's all a great thing.. and we don't have to fuck our economy to do so.

[Diamond Cross]

I agree on Motivez on this one. Regardless of whether Global Warming is or is not happening, it will be of great benefit to stop producing so much pollution. The benefits of a healthy and productful life far outweight the release of pollutants in the air that cause things like acid rain and some kinds of cancer.

According to a study produced in 1994, car exhaust alone produces these pathogens:

• Carbon Monoxide
• Nitrogen dioxide
• Sulphur dioxide
• Suspended particles including PM-10, particles less than 10 microns in size.
• Benzene
• Formaldehyde
• Polycyclic hydrocarbons

Adverse Health Effects of Chronic Exposure to Petroleum Combustion Products. On November 18, 1994, the first-ever conference on "Air Pollution: Impacts on Body Organs and Systems"

According to the study:

"Blood perfuses all of the body's organs and can carry toxic substances as well as beneficial substances, such as oxygen, to them. Air pollution is the source of many materials that may enter the human bloodstream through the nose, mouth, skin, and the digestive tract. Chemicals known to be harmful, such as benzene, lead and other heavy metals, carbon monoxide, volatile nitrites, pesticides, and herbicides. These substances have been shown to produce harmful effects on the blood, bone marrow, spleen, and lymph nodes. Blood cells are constantly undergoing turnover, with new blood cells entering the circulation as mature cells are lost, making the blood system especially vulnerable to environmental poisoning. For example, lead interferes with normal red blood cell formation by inhibiting important enzymes. In addition, lead damages red blood cell membranes and interferes with cell metabolism in a way that shortens the survival of each individual cell. Each of these harmful effects can result in clinical anemia.
Benzene and other less known hydrocarbons are produced in petroleum refining, and are widely used as solvents and as materials in the production of various industrial products and pesticides. Benzene also is found in gasoline and in cigarette smoke. It has been shown that exposure to benzene is related to the development of leukemia and lymphoma. Benzene has a suppressive effect on bone marrow and it impairs blood cell maturation and amplification. Benzene exposure may result in a diminished number of blood cells (cytopenia) or total bone marrow loss. A number of metabolites appear to be involved in this process, and there may be several targets of toxicity, including stem, progenitor, and some stromal cells.

Common air pollutants also have an affect on blood and thus on organs of the body. For example, carbon monoxide, arising from incomplete combustion of carbonaceous materials, binds to the hemoglobin over two hundred times more avidly than oxygen and distorts the release to the tissues of any remaining oxygen. Thus, CO poisoning is akin to suffocation. In addition, it has been observed that carbon monoxide can exacerbate cardiovascular disease in humans.

The toxic chemicals in environmental air pollution stimulate the immune system to activate leukocytes and macrophages that can produce tissue damage, especially to the cells that line human blood vessels. Although the damage is initially slight and may not produce significant limitation to blood flow, repetitive exposure to toxic substances interferes with the ability of these lining cells to release a substance called endothelial-derived relaxing factor (EDRF). EDRF relaxes the smooth muscle in blood vessel walls, and blocking the release of EDRF leads to systemic hypertension. At the same time, leukocytes on the endothelium's surface appear to play a part in promoting the arteriosclerotic disease process. The combined effect of these events is to accelerate the changes that eventually lead to hypertension and ischemic heart disease.

More information can be found here:

Car Exhaust, Air Pollution; Heath Effects

And that's just the tip of the iceberg for pollution. Overall, reducing the amount of pollution with hopefully a complete end in the long run will be of great benefit to humanity.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

But you do?

Last time I checked you didn't have a degree in Climatology or a related field.. Any 3rd grader can google for opinion articles made by global warming skeptics and post them as some sort of evidence, and so far that's all you've done. It's not terribly impressive.

I never pretended to have a degree in climatology, nor do I pretend to understand it, nor do I claim to know the science, as most proponents of global warming do.

All I claim to know is that many believe in it, and many don't, making it nothing more than a controversial idea.

Also, someone who is a global warming skeptic being at MIT doesn't automatically prove anything, and it doesn't disprove what I said, so I'm not sure what kind of point you were attempting (and failed) to make.

Uh, that there are pulished professors who disagree with it, the same you say are lacking?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by mididoctors

about PJ...

Known funding includes $49,000 from German Coal Mining Association, $15,000 from Edison Electric Institute and $40,000 from Cyprus Minerals Company, an early supporter of People for the West, a "wise use" group. He recieved $63,000 for research on global climate change from Western Fuels Association, above and beyond the undisclosed amount he is paid for the World Climate Report/Review. According to Harper's magazine, Michaels has recieved over $115,000 over the past four years from coal and oil interests.

motivez has a point IMO

Boris
London

Now show all the GW proponents who get money from politically biased sources.

These points are hardly relevant.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by motivez

Are you honestly suggesting Climatology isn't a legitimate field of scientific study?

"Climatology isn't a person... just because a self serving politician has tried to hijack the issue for personnel aggrandizement doesn't mean climatology needs to prove itself to you in some other special way apart from the science..

Boris
london"

Responce:


"Climatology as a legitimate field of scientific study.

They are talking about giving Al Gore an honorary degree in climatology. I think he should contribe something to actual science to get it. Otherwise give him some political or social science degree. Tell me why I am wrong? I have not heard a good argument yet."


Now what about the post do you not understand? I quote people for a reason. I was clearly taking the matter seriously and rolling eyes at the quoted cheap shot. The rest of the remarks are rather clear about my respect for a science and intention. Wake up sleepy head!

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Here is interesting story about AL Gore:

"In 1991....Will Harper (government scientist) who took leave from Princeton and Jason (DOD Advisory Group) to direct the Department of Energy's Office of Science, said publically that Vice President Al Gore's claims of environmentally dangerous amounts of ultraviolet light hitting the ground were based on unreliable measurements, then proposed to make more reliable measurements and was fired."

Source: "The JASONS: The Secret History of Science's Postwar Elite" by Ann Finkbeiner 2006.

That tells me just about all I need to know about Al Gore on this issue. Not that I wont listen to more rational voices.

Funny this does not get quoted or smilies?

[mididoctors]

Originally Posted by motivez

Last time I checked you didn't have a degree in Climatology or a related field.. Any 3rd grader can google for opinion articles made by global warming skeptics and post them as some sort of evidence, and so far that's all you've done. It's not terribly impressive.

the real issue I have with this shotgun link posting method of argument is the poster can not discriminate between those links which are "cranks" and those that raise genuine points or at least points that on first inspection may need answering


Also i find it unlikely that any sort of filtering of the material has taking place prior to posting

having to rebuke this pile kack never mind actually producing it in the first place is a fantastic waste of time..

swamping the "info-sphere" with this crap is a tactic of co-ordinated disinformation

the issue of satellite temp correlations with ground temps is a case in point

this is a solid looking analysis at first glance DESIGNED to appear scientific and compelling as is the most mathematical and data based of Balls posts... it looks good.

but really its aimed at audience with little understanding of the issue so as to be impressive, what is more it has too been created by someone who KNOWS that they are creating a FALSE argument and in this sense i would call it maliciously evil.

it is hard to refute for the casual reader because of the mass of data... but this belies stripping away the data and seeing the core point.. which is a falsehood.. there is not a direct correlation between high atmospheric temperature and ground temperature and once more if there was I would be very worried about the behavior of the sun

ie a dual temp rise both high and low indicates a ability by the sun to increase solar flux on specific regions on earth irrespective of atmospheric conditions.. high upper atmospheric heating occurring with ground temperature anomalies would indicate the sun can choose to radiate more on some regions than others independent of all other factors

if the atmosphere was static you would expect a OPPOSITE CORRELATION between the high and low temperature.. but because the atmosphere is dynamic and energy can be move from region to region by air masses such opposite correlations do not exist... temperature inversions with altitude are common and are associated with air mass movements (fronts etc)

as the atmosphere becomes less dense with less obstructions to solar flux this opposite correlation will become more pronounced NOT THE OTHER WAY ROUND

claiming that GW measurement are invalid because of a non correlation in high and ground temperatures is plain dumb but superficially appealing to those of us unversed in such matters

because the political debate on this issue occurs between people of little real expertise such bogus analysis serves to muddy the waters..

these people who actively design these arguments are evil fucks because they know what they do..

Boris
London

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Funny this does not get quoted or smilies?

You guys keep proping up the Gore strawman and knocking him down.

I haven't seen anyone in this thread use him or his movie as a source.

[mididoctors]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Now show all the GW proponents who get money from politically biased sources.

These points are hardly relevant.

well Al gore is sort of self funding...but there's one big one.. then again he ain't a scientist..

how you think its not relevant I don't know?

Boris
London

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by motivez

Last time I checked you didn't have a degree in Climatology or a related field.. Any 3rd grader can google for opinion articles made by global warming skeptics and post them as some sort of evidence, and so far that's all you've done. It's not terribly impressive.

Borderline personal insults aside, anyone can be unimpressed with links that run counter to their prejudices, but do you have anything of substance to discount what is in them?

Meanwhile: Just watch the Love Fest tonight. Hollywood is busy teaching 3rd graders and anybody else who will listen that the debate is over! People who don't buy that have a much better grasp of science.

[motivez]

I'm not insulting anyone, it's a simple fact about the content of the information being posted.

I never claimed to be an expert on Climatology, only that I defer to the vast majority of least biased experts out there.. and someone with no more experience than myself in the field saying I have no clue what I'm talking about is something I'm going to respond to.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by mididoctors

well Al gore is sort of self funding...but there's one big one.. then again he ain't a scientist..

EXactly

how you think its not relevant I don't know?

It's simple. In the world of scientific research, it is part of the job of the scientist in question to fund his own research. Typically, a scientist enters into an area and seeks funding for it, almost always from interested parties. This can come from federal funds or private funds. Typically, private parties interested in a scientist's research will not fund it if they don't like it; as someone mentioned, almost an investment. Rarely does this funding skew a scientist's results, it merely shows that these companies are interested in the data he is providing. This happens on both sides of the spectrum, from GW skeptics to proponents.

To point out who and where a scientist gets money is moot. Both sides get funding from politically biased groups, because those groups have an interest in the scientific data they are seeing.

That's why it's irrelevant. The fact that you continue to show 'so and so oil company gave this much money to so and so' means simply that the oil companies are interested in the science this person is doing, not that these scientists are fabricating data.

I'm in cancer research; most of our money comes from CANCER CENTERS. Yes, believe it. Do our results change because we get money from those interseted in cancer? Of course not.

Likewise, the science of global warming skeptics doesn't necessarily change because they get money from other global warming skeptics.

[Roonie]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

EXactly

It's simple. In the world of scientific research, it is part of the job of the scientist in question to fund his own research. Typically, a scientist enters into an area and seeks funding for it, almost always from interested parties. This can come from federal funds or private funds. Typically, private parties interested in a scientist's research will not fund it if they don't like it; as someone mentioned, almost an investment. Rarely does this funding skew a scientist's results, it merely shows that these companies are interested in the data he is providing. This happens on both sides of the spectrum, from GW skeptics to proponents.

To point out who and where a scientist gets money is moot. Both sides get funding from politically biased groups, because those groups have an interest in the scientific data they are seeing.

That's why it's irrelevant. The fact that you continue to show 'so and so oil company gave this much money to so and so' means simply that the oil companies are interested in the science this person is doing, not that these scientists are fabricating data.

The relevency here is the oil companies make a lot of money when proving these facts wrong which is THE ONLY REASON why they are interested in this science in the first place. The more they can disprove or make the public unaware of global warming the more they stand to profit (as if record earnings for the past years is not enough).

I cannot see any real motivation on the other side of the coin unless the global warming proponents are funded by GE or someone else who makes flourescent light bulbs, solar panels, etc (things that save energy). Just trying to follow the money trail.