real science has no part in global warming

[ballz2wallz]

Guess what, people fund projects they're interested in, I've already established that. That does not change the science being conducted.

Those energy companies also fund alternative fuel projects and institutions around the world. Are they also tainted?

[Diamond Cross]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

That's not at all what I said.

Did you come up with that all by yourself?

Yes you did. That's what Thorgrim gave you the positive rep for.

So you just keep on denying the facts no matter what the evidence says.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

That's what Thorgrim gave you the positive rep for.

I only have two negative reps from Thorgrim.

I keep on denying the present concensus based on the present facts. It's very possible that it can be proven one way or another, but it's not at this point. When it happens, I have no problem believing the reality of the situation.

[Roonie]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Guess what, people fund projects they're interested in, I've already established that. That does not change the science being conducted.

Yes it does. When you get funding to to prove your cause you better earn the money otherwise the funding ceases to exist. This is also a small handful of so called "experts" which really are fronts for oil companies. Your experts have no validity except for maybe in the extremelly small circles you run in.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Roonie

Yes it does. When you get funding to to prove your cause you better earn the money otherwise the funding ceases to exist. This is also a small handful of so called "experts" which really are fronts for oil companies. Your experts have no validity except for maybe in the extremelly small circles you run in.

NO, that's not how funding works. Funding works in interested parties, obviously in this case in the hopes that they will be able to benefit, but you seem to think there are hundreds, if not thousands of scients out there willing to fake data for the sake of these companies who give what, tens of thousands in grant money? You do realize that's minimal when many grants are hundreds of thousands? Professors or senior scientists at some of these institutions (MIT included) are not going to risk their lives and work because they fake some data for these energy companies. Get real dude, think a little. It's obvious you have no idea how this works.

You saw what happens when you lie about your data with the Korean cloning fiasco. You see all these scientists doing the same thing? Of course not.

You know what, I'd even be willing to be that many global warming proponents also got funding at one point from oil companies, because (surprise!) the oil companies are interested in their work.

[Roonie]

I would say the number is probably under 100 scientists that are skeptics (feel free to prove me wrong). There are many for the GW theory 2500 alone on the IPCC report. The other science based organizations included and you well into 5000 or more not including all the periodicals written about the subject.

Your 1-2% of scientists that are skeptical really hold no weight. Their oil interests speak louder then their data. I am not debating the merits of their findings as they are TAR-nished. It really is like talking to a brick wall.

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

These are just some groups made up of (surprise!) scientists:

The Heartland Institute is a national nonprofit research and education organization, tax exempt under Section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code, and founded in Chicago in 1984. It is not affiliated with any political party, business, or foundation.

Heartland's mission is to discover and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Such solutions include parental choice in education, choice and personal responsibility in health care, market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of public services, and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do a better job than government bureaucracies.

Heartland has been endorsed by some of the country's leading scholars, public policy experts, and elected officials. Dr. Milton Friedman calls Heartland "a highly effective libertarian institute." Cato Institute president Edward Crane says Heartland "has had a tremendous impact, first in the Midwest, and now nationally."

Activities of The Heartland Institute are overseen by a 16-member Board of Directors, which meets quarterly. A full-time staff of 15 works with eight editors and 11 Senior Fellows, including Dr. Richard Dolinar (health care), Dr. Jay Lehr (environment), Maureen Martin (legal affairs), John Rutledge (technology and economy), and Brian Wesbury (taxes and economy).

Two committees provide outside advice and expertise: a Board of Policy Advisors and the Board of Legislative Advisors. The former consists of more than 100 academics and professional economists who conduct research and participate in peer review of the institute's publications. The latter consists of more than 500 elected officials who suggest topics and sources of information and sometimes produce model legislation.

Funding for Heartland's programs comes from approximately 1,400 individuals, foundations, and corporations. In 2005, 52 percent of the organization’s income came from foundations, 32 percent from corporations, and 14 percent from individuals. Heartland does not accept government funds and does not conduct "contract" research for special interest groups.

If you believe in empowering people with ideas based on the principles of individual rights and limited government, please consider becoming a Member or a Donor to The Heartland Institute. Achieving the great American goal of "liberty and justice for all" requires that people like you help defend the institutions of freedom.

Becoming a member of and donor to The Heartland Institute is an effective and affordable way to fulfill your duty as an active citizen. Please join us today.





Global Climate Coalition

Founded in 1989 by 46 corporations and trade associations representing all major elements of US industry, the GCC presents itself as a "voice for business in the global warming debate." The group funded several flawed studies on the economics of the cost of mitigating climate change, which formed the basis of their 1997/1998 multi-million dollar advertising campaign against the Kyoto Protocol. The GCC began to unravel in 1997 when British Petroleum withdrew its membership. Since then many other corporations have followed BP s lead and left the coalition. This exodus reached a fevered pitch in the early months of 2000 when DaimlerChrysler, Texaco and General Motors all announced their exodus from the GCC. Since these desertions, the GCC restructured and remains a powerful and well-funded force focused on obstructing meaningful efforts to mitigate climate change.

Spin: Global Warming is real, but it is too expensive to do anything about. The Kyoto Protocol is fundamentally flawed.

Funding: Corporate members (industries, trade associations etc.)

George Marshall Institute

This conservative think tank shifted its focus from Star Wars to climate change in the late 1980s. In 1989, the Marshall Institute released a report claiming that "cyclical variations in the intensity of the sun would offset any climate change associated with elevated greenhouse gases." Though refuted by the IPCC, the report was very influential in influencing the Bush Sr. Administration s climate change policy. The Marshall Institute has since published numerous reports downplaying the severity of global climate change.


Spin: Blame the Sun. The Kyoto Protocol is fatally flawed.

Affiliated Individuals: Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist from Harvard; and Frederick Seitz.

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine


The Marshall Institute co-sponsored with the OISM a deceptive campaign -- known as the Petition Project -- to undermine and discredit the scientific authority of the IPCC and to oppose the Kyoto Protocol. Early in the spring of 1998, thousands of scientists around the country received a mass mailing urging them to sign a petition calling on the government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was accompanied by other pieces including an article formatted to mimic the journal of the National Academy of Sciences. Subsequent research revealed that the article had not been peer-reviewed, nor published, nor even accepted for publication in that journal and the Academy released a strong statement disclaiming any connection to this effort and reaffirming the reality of climate change. The Petition resurfaced in 2001.

Spin: There is no scientific basis for claims about global warming. IPCC is a hoax. Kyoto is flawed.

Funding: Petition was funded by private sources.

Affiliated Individuals: Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Frederick Seitz




Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

Founded in 1990 by widely publicized climate skeptic S. Fred Singer, SEPP s stated purpose is to "document the relationship between scientific data and the development of federal environmental policy." SEPP has mounted a sizeable media campaign -- publishing articles, letters to the editor, and a large number of press releases -- to discredit the issues of global warming, ozone depletion, and acid rain.

Spin: Moreover, climate change won t be bad for us anyway. Action on climate change is not warranted because of shaky science and flawed policy approaches.

Funding: Conservative foundations including Bradley, Smith Richardson, and Forbes. SEPP has also been directly tied to ultra right-wing mogul Reverend Sung Myung Moon s Unification Church, including receipt of a year s free office space from a Moon-funded group and the participation of SEPP s director in church-sponsored conferences and on the board of a Moon-funded magazine.

Affiliated Individuals:S. Fred Singer,Frederick Seitz




Greening Earth Society

The Greening Earth Society (GES) was founded on Earth Day 1998 by the Western Fuels Association to promote the view that increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 are good for humanity. GES and Western Fuels are essentially the same organization. Both used to be located at the same office suite in Arlington, VA. Until December 2000, Fred Palmer chaired both institutions. The GES is now chaired by Bob Norrgard, another long-term Western Fuels associate. The Western Fuels Assocation (WFA) is a cooperative of coal-dependent utilities in the western states that works in part to discredit climate change science and to prevent regulations that might damage coal-related industries.




Spin: CO2 emissions are good for the planet; coal is the best energy source we have.

Affiliated Individuals: Patrick Michaels, Robert Balling, David Wojick, Sallie Baliunas, Sylvan Wittwer, John Daley, Sherwood Idso

Funding: The Greening Earth Society receives its funding from the Western Fuels Association, which in turn receives its funding from its coal and utility company members.




Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide & Global Change

The Center claims to "disseminate factual reports and sound commentary on new developments in the world-wide scientific quest to determine the climactic and biological consequences of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content." The Center is led by two brothers, Craig and Keith Idso. Their father, Sherwood Idso, is affiliated with the Greening Earth Society; the Center also shares a board member (Sylvan Wittwer) with GES. Both Idso brothers have been on the Western Fuels payroll at one time or another.

Spin: Increased levels of CO2 will help plants, and that's good.

Funding: The Center is extremely secretive of its funding sources, stating that it is their policy not to divulge it funders. There is evidence for a strong connection to the Greening Earth Society (ergo Western Fuels Association).

Affiliated Individuals: Craig Idso, Keith Idso, Sylvan Wittwer

The World Climate Report is a nice little publication.

But since you like Wikipedia so much, here's some for you:

(snip)

So you see, there are many scientists out there that do not agree, and these are just the vocal ones. I can find article after article of scientists, meteorologists, etc...people that work in the field, who disagree...too many to include here. I've already listed several more recent studies that don't agree with global warming, and yet you've yet to talk about them.

The glaciers in Greenland are growing. Why don't you address that issue?

I did use wikipedia, but unlike you, I actually clicked on each and every link that I posted and looked at them carefully. I picked every quote that I cited in my previous post. In two cases I typed from reading a pdf. My post above (previous page) did not contain a single link to wikipedia, while you just cut and pasted directly from there.

Apparently you didn't even read your own post. I highlighted in bold text sections that would make any reasonable person skeptical of the claims of that company. In fact, you didn't link to one SINGLE position paper, statement, or endorsement of another legitimate scientific, academic, or governmental orgainzations position paper or statement.

I put the quotes from the position papers that clearly and state that humans contribute to global warming, I then named the organization and the paper, then I put the link.

According to those ten links that I posted, in the last 7 years at least 31 scientific, academic, and governmental organizations here and around the world either explicitly or implicitly endorse the idea that human activity is linked to global warming.

You, in response, cut and pasted some stuff about 7 "scientific" organizations. Not one position paper, Not one statement, not one endorsement of another scientific organizations position paper or statement, not one reference to a study done post 2000, not one quote, and not one link until the "World Climate Organization" publication.

In addition, judging by the words in your very own post and the information posted by roonie, most, if not all, of the "scientific organizations" that you cited are tied to energy companies or held in low esteem by their peers. In any case, among those seven that you named, you were still not able to link to one paper or statement from the last seven years.

Even if I was generous and assumed that your post even approached an adequate rebuttal,... even if I was delusionally overgenerous and said that all of them were legitmate and responsive, you should still be able to name at least 24 more scientific organizations. By my own count, 31 to 7 is still an overwhelmingly lopsided number. You claim that you can match them tit for tat. Time for you to put up or shut up, IMHO.

As for the greenland ice, I'll use your logic: For every instance you can cite of global cooling, I can cite an instance of global warming. So there. So what? Besides, mididoctors and others have smacked you down on the science repeatedly and with much more skill than I could possibly muster. I haven't bragged on this forum about my association with scientists. You have.

[mididoctors]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

These are just some groups made up of (surprise!) scientists:

The Heartland Institute is a national nonprofit research and education organization, tax exempt under Section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code, and founded in Chicago in 1984. It is not affiliated with any political party, business, or foundation.

Heartland's mission is to discover and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Such solutions include parental choice in education, choice and personal responsibility in health care, market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of public services, and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do a better job than government bureaucracies.

Heartland has been endorsed by some of the country's leading scholars, public policy experts, and elected officials. Dr. Milton Friedman calls Heartland "a highly effective libertarian institute." Cato Institute president Edward Crane says Heartland "has had a tremendous impact, first in the Midwest, and now nationally."

Activities of The Heartland Institute are overseen by a 16-member Board of Directors, which meets quarterly. A full-time staff of 15 works with eight editors and 11 Senior Fellows, including Dr. Richard Dolinar (health care), Dr. Jay Lehr (environment), Maureen Martin (legal affairs), John Rutledge (technology and economy), and Brian Wesbury (taxes and economy).

Two committees provide outside advice and expertise: a Board of Policy Advisors and the Board of Legislative Advisors. The former consists of more than 100 academics and professional economists who conduct research and participate in peer review of the institute's publications. The latter consists of more than 500 elected officials who suggest topics and sources of information and sometimes produce model legislation.

Funding for Heartland's programs comes from approximately 1,400 individuals, foundations, and corporations. In 2005, 52 percent of the organization’s income came from foundations, 32 percent from corporations, and 14 percent from individuals. Heartland does not accept government funds and does not conduct "contract" research for special interest groups.

If you believe in empowering people with ideas based on the principles of individual rights and limited government, please consider becoming a Member or a Donor to The Heartland Institute. Achieving the great American goal of "liberty and justice for all" requires that people like you help defend the institutions of freedom.

Becoming a member of and donor to The Heartland Institute is an effective and affordable way to fulfill your duty as an active citizen. Please join us today.





Global Climate Coalition

Founded in 1989 by 46 corporations and trade associations representing all major elements of US industry, the GCC presents itself as a "voice for business in the global warming debate." The group funded several flawed studies on the economics of the cost of mitigating climate change, which formed the basis of their 1997/1998 multi-million dollar advertising campaign against the Kyoto Protocol. The GCC began to unravel in 1997 when British Petroleum withdrew its membership. Since then many other corporations have followed BP s lead and left the coalition. This exodus reached a fevered pitch in the early months of 2000 when DaimlerChrysler, Texaco and General Motors all announced their exodus from the GCC. Since these desertions, the GCC restructured and remains a powerful and well-funded force focused on obstructing meaningful efforts to mitigate climate change.

Spin: Global Warming is real, but it is too expensive to do anything about. The Kyoto Protocol is fundamentally flawed.

Funding: Corporate members (industries, trade associations etc.)

George Marshall Institute

This conservative think tank shifted its focus from Star Wars to climate change in the late 1980s. In 1989, the Marshall Institute released a report claiming that "cyclical variations in the intensity of the sun would offset any climate change associated with elevated greenhouse gases." Though refuted by the IPCC, the report was very influential in influencing the Bush Sr. Administration s climate change policy. The Marshall Institute has since published numerous reports downplaying the severity of global climate change.


Spin: Blame the Sun. The Kyoto Protocol is fatally flawed.

Affiliated Individuals: Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist from Harvard; and Frederick Seitz.

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine


The Marshall Institute co-sponsored with the OISM a deceptive campaign -- known as the Petition Project -- to undermine and discredit the scientific authority of the IPCC and to oppose the Kyoto Protocol. Early in the spring of 1998, thousands of scientists around the country received a mass mailing urging them to sign a petition calling on the government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was accompanied by other pieces including an article formatted to mimic the journal of the National Academy of Sciences. Subsequent research revealed that the article had not been peer-reviewed, nor published, nor even accepted for publication in that journal and the Academy released a strong statement disclaiming any connection to this effort and reaffirming the reality of climate change. The Petition resurfaced in 2001.

Spin: There is no scientific basis for claims about global warming. IPCC is a hoax. Kyoto is flawed.

Funding: Petition was funded by private sources.

Affiliated Individuals: Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Frederick Seitz




Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

Founded in 1990 by widely publicized climate skeptic S. Fred Singer, SEPP s stated purpose is to "document the relationship between scientific data and the development of federal environmental policy." SEPP has mounted a sizeable media campaign -- publishing articles, letters to the editor, and a large number of press releases -- to discredit the issues of global warming, ozone depletion, and acid rain.

Spin: Moreover, climate change won t be bad for us anyway. Action on climate change is not warranted because of shaky science and flawed policy approaches.

Funding: Conservative foundations including Bradley, Smith Richardson, and Forbes. SEPP has also been directly tied to ultra right-wing mogul Reverend Sung Myung Moon s Unification Church, including receipt of a year s free office space from a Moon-funded group and the participation of SEPP s director in church-sponsored conferences and on the board of a Moon-funded magazine.

Affiliated Individuals:S. Fred Singer,Frederick Seitz




Greening Earth Society

The Greening Earth Society (GES) was founded on Earth Day 1998 by the Western Fuels Association to promote the view that increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 are good for humanity. GES and Western Fuels are essentially the same organization. Both used to be located at the same office suite in Arlington, VA. Until December 2000, Fred Palmer chaired both institutions. The GES is now chaired by Bob Norrgard, another long-term Western Fuels associate. The Western Fuels Assocation (WFA) is a cooperative of coal-dependent utilities in the western states that works in part to discredit climate change science and to prevent regulations that might damage coal-related industries.




Spin: CO2 emissions are good for the planet; coal is the best energy source we have.

Affiliated Individuals: Patrick Michaels, Robert Balling, David Wojick, Sallie Baliunas, Sylvan Wittwer, John Daley, Sherwood Idso

Funding: The Greening Earth Society receives its funding from the Western Fuels Association, which in turn receives its funding from its coal and utility company members.




Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide & Global Change

The Center claims to "disseminate factual reports and sound commentary on new developments in the world-wide scientific quest to determine the climactic and biological consequences of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content." The Center is led by two brothers, Craig and Keith Idso. Their father, Sherwood Idso, is affiliated with the Greening Earth Society; the Center also shares a board member (Sylvan Wittwer) with GES. Both Idso brothers have been on the Western Fuels payroll at one time or another.

Spin: Increased levels of CO2 will help plants, and that's good.

Funding: The Center is extremely secretive of its funding sources, stating that it is their policy not to divulge it funders. There is evidence for a strong connection to the Greening Earth Society (ergo Western Fuels Association).

Affiliated Individuals: Craig Idso, Keith Idso, Sylvan Wittwer

thats a list of non credible groups and why you idiot

it even goes as far as explaining how the Marshall institute started a entrapment and dis-information scheme...

for christ sake get a grip.. your making a complete ass of yourself..

GW or not go and get off the net for a few days

Boris
London

[motivez]

Lets keep it civil please. Personal attacks are not going to be tolerated.

[motivez]

Speaking of the real science on the issue:

A 10-year University of California study found that essentially zero percent of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles disagreed that global warming exists, whereas, another study found that 53 percent of mainstream newspaper articles disagreed the global warming premise.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by motivez

Speaking of the real science on the issue:

More liberal lies!

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

Speaking of the real science on the issue:

Gore says media miss climate message - Nashville, Tennessee - Wednesday, 02/28/07 - Tennessean.com

Back in Tennessee on Tuesday, Gore told a crowd of about 50 people at the U.S. Media Ethics Summit II that the presentation's single most provocative slide was one that contrasts results of two long-term studies. A 10-year University of California study found that essentially zero percent of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles disagreed that global warming exists, whereas, another study found that 53 percent of mainstream newspaper articles disagreed the global warming premise.

I would like to see that study. Gore also says polar bears are drowning en mass because of global warming based on four polar bears who died a decade ago in a severe storm... Sensationalism at its finest. Scientific consensus says Al Gore was wrong by blaming global warming for it, yet he uses that article as proof to justify his claims. Not much unlike Michael Moore when you really think about it.

Global warming isn't really being disputed by most. It's the role humans play in global warming and whether it's natural or not that's being disputed. Records show the climate of the earth was in a warming trend for decades. Just about everyone who disagrees with Al Gore would agree to at least that.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Scrum

More liberal lies!

Well it is from the University of Liberalifornia

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Gore says media miss climate message - Nashville, Tennessee - Wednesday, 02/28/07 - Tennessean.com


I would like to see that study. Gore also says polar bears are drowning en mass because of global warming based on four polar bears who died a decade ago in a severe storm... Sensationalism at its finest. Scientific consensus says Al Gore was wrong by blaming global warming for it, yet he uses that article as proof to justify his claims. Not much unlike Michael Moore when you really think about it.

Global warming isn't really being disputed by most. It's the role humans play in global warming and whether it's natural or not that's being disputed. Records show the climate of the earth was in a warming trend for decades. Just about everyone who disagrees with Al Gore would agree to at least that.

Comparing Moore's work to Gore's is just ridiculous

Moore had his work paraded through tons of sites, where they found actual mistakes, actual things he said that were really wrong or he didn't even read the material right...

Nixon posted a nice "hit piece" from a far-right libertarian magazine attacking Gore's work...EVERY SINGLE ATTACK has something along the lines of "well...he could be right" or "well...that could happen"

There was NOTHING like that in Moore's work or the attacks on him

BTW, I went through paragraph by paragraph on the attack piece and found not did the attacks sound weak, they were weak and had little basis...even if they were miraculously right, it wouldn't disprove what he said, it'd just make it more "debateable"

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Comparing Moore's work to Gore's is just ridiculous

Moore had his work paraded through tons of sites, where they found actual mistakes, actual things he said that were really wrong or he didn't even read the material right...

The same method was used in that scenario. Prove what I said wrong. Gore made a factual mistake as well and backs it up using the classic Michael Moore fallacy. If Gore uses the same technique in a politically charged documentary he's going to be compared to Michael Moore. I never said his documentary was anywhere near as bad as Moore's pieces, but he does use the same techniques at some parts.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

The same method was used in that scenario. Prove