Although 19% of the American Population believe in Global Warming and the scientific community have not come to accept the theory of Global Warming as Law; the EPA has issued the following:
EPA Finds Greenhouse Gases Pose Threat to Public Health, Welfare / Proposed Finding Comes in Response to 2007 Supreme Court Ruling
(Washington, D.C. – April 17, 2009) After a thorough scientific review ordered in 2007 by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a proposed finding Friday that greenhouse gases contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health or welfare.
The proposed finding, which now moves to a public comment period, identified six greenhouse gases that pose a potential threat.
“This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations. Fortunately, it follows President Obama’s call for a low carbon economy and strong leadership in Congress on clean energy and climate legislation,” said Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “This pollution problem has a solution – one that will create millions of green jobs and end our country’s dependence on foreign oil.”
As the proposed endangerment finding states, “In both magnitude and probability, climate change is an enormous problem. The greenhouse gases that are responsible for it endanger public health and welfare within the meaning of the Clean Air Act.”
EPA’s proposed endangerment finding is based on rigorous, peer-reviewed scientific analysis of six gases – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride – that have been the subject of intensive analysis by scientists around the world. The science clearly shows that concentrations of these gases are at unprecedented levels as a result of human emissions, and these high levels are very likely the cause of the increase in average temperatures and other changes in our climate.
The scientific analysis also confirms that climate change impacts human health in several ways. Findings from a recent EPA study titled “Assessment of the Impacts of Global Change on Regional U.S. Air Quality: A Synthesis of Climate Change Impacts on Ground-Level Ozone,” for example, suggest that climate change may lead to higher concentrations of ground-level ozone, a harmful pollutant. Additional impacts of climate change include, but are not limited to:
* increased drought;
* more heavy downpours and flooding;
* more frequent and intense heat waves and wildfires;
* greater sea level rise;
* more intense storms; and
* harm to water resources, agriculture, wildlife and ecosystems.
In proposing the finding, Administrator Jackson also took into account the disproportionate impact climate change has on the health of certain segments of the population, such as the poor, the very young, the elderly, those already in poor health, the disabled, those living alone and/or indigenous populations dependent on one or a few resources.
In addition to threatening human health, the analysis finds that climate change also has serious national security implications. Consistent with this proposed finding, in 2007, 11 retired U.S. generals and admirals signed a report from the Center for a New American Security stating that climate change “presents significant national security challenges for the United States.” Escalating violence in destabilized regions can be incited and fomented by an increasing scarcity of resources – including water. This lack of resources, driven by climate change patterns, then drives massive migration to more stabilized regions of the world.
The proposed endangerment finding now enters the public comment period, which is the next step in the deliberative process EPA must undertake before issuing final findings. Today’s proposed finding does not include any proposed regulations. Before taking any steps to reduce greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, EPA would conduct an appropriate process and consider stakeholder input. Notwithstanding this required regulatory process, both President Obama and Administrator Jackson have repeatedly indicated their preference for comprehensive legislation to address this issue and create the framework for a clean energy economy.
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
Ya lost me when you said the sun and warming aren't related.
Apparently I lost you much earlier than you think because I never said the sun and warming aren't related.
This thread has cited NASA studies as "evidence" that "global warming is a fraud."
Above is a link to direct quotes from a NASA climatologist putting the contributions of solar variation to climate change in perspective.
No sense in reposting it, try looking at the article and reading for yourself.
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
Well people?? I'm waiting! Can't anyone find a SINGLE legitimate source to discredit the current anthropogenic global warming theory?? Or were you all just parroting "conservative" buzzwords and phrases that you never really researched yourselves? Seriously, I welcome a debate but the best I've seen so far here is "I exhale CO2 so global warming must not be true." Come on people, show me some evidence that you think for yourselves!
Appeals to authority are nonsense. A real scientist would know this. YOU are making assertions here. WE are being skeptical. Prove your case without appealing to authorities, especially authorities who do not get more money from the government IF they scare people into believing in man-made global warming.
You clearly know absolutely NOTHING about how science works in the real world.
Anyone that could show SOLID EVIDENCE that the current consensus about greenhouse gasses and global warming is fundamentally flawed would probably win a Nobel prize.
It does not help a research scientist AT ALL to jump on the bandwagon. If a legit scientist had ANY EVIDENCE that burning fossil fuels did NOT contribute to climate change, he'd probably have the most well-endowed lab on the planet. Hell, he's be like the James Bond of science. Scientists do not get an idea then make the facts fit , they look at the facts and adapt their ideas.
You keep saying I should "prove my own point" and stop "appealing to authority." What the hell are you talking about? My Research was in GC-MS stable isotope analysis os atmospheric and groundwater contaminants for the purposes of tracking point sources of pollution. While I am fully capable of doing a literature search and reading and understanding papers directly related to global warming, my own research did not address this issue directly. Are you saying it is stupid to ask experts who have devoted their professional lives to studying climate change for their opinion? Who should we ask then?? According to you apparently we should listen to think tanks funded by big industry that use unethical means to mislead the less educated masses.
In your post above you refer to the "heartland institute." They are a freaking JOKE! Just google them for god's sake:
"In April 2008, environmental journalist Richard Littlemore wrote that the Heartland Institute's list of "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares"[10] included at least 45 scientists who neither knew of their inclusion as "coauthors" of the article, nor agreed with its claims regarding global warming. Dozens of the scientists asked the Heartland Institute to remove their names from the list; for instance, Gregory Cutter of Old Dominion University wrote, "I have NO doubts... the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there." Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford wrote "Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!" [11]"
"The institute is a member organization of the Cooler Heads Coalition, "an informal and ad-hoc group focused on dispelling the myths of global warming".[4] The board of directors for the Heartland Institute includes Thomas Walton,[5] , Economic Policy Analysis Director for General Motors.[6]"
Seriously man are you kidding me?
In the most respected scientific journal on the planet (Science) the study i linked abouve shows that NOT A SINGLE PEER REVIEWED ARTICLE IN THE WORLD disagreed with the consensus position that anthropomorphic climate destabilization is REAL.
So if you think all of these "bozos" who have dedicated their lives to studing climate change (with graduate degrees from the best research universities on the planet) are not qualified to make the call, who is?
You? Plumbers? Television evangilists? I know even with my training I tend to defer to experts, especially those who have demonstrated nothing but scientific integrity.
You want me to make my case? Here it is: Every educated person willing to have their work critically reviewd by the scientific community agrees with the consensus statement. I have read the papers and I agree as well. The ONLY people that disagree are in positions that are appently funded by of HEAVILY influenced by big petroleum and big industry.
If you are secretly a research scientist who has just completed a longitudinal study on greenhouse emissions and global climate trends and have new data, then by all means bring it on and I'll listen.
If you are just another conservative who didn't pay attention in science class and are angry because you don't understand what's going on, then forgive me if I don't take you particularly seriously.
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
Well people?? I'm waiting! Can't anyone find a SINGLE legitimate source to discredit the current anthropogenic global warming theory?? Or were you all just parroting "conservative" buzzwords and phrases that you never really researched yourselves? Seriously, I welcome a debate but the best I've seen so far here is "I exhale CO2 so global warming must not be true." Come on people, show me some evidence that you think for yourselves!
Appeals to authority are nonsense. A real scientist would know this. YOU are making assertions here. WE are being skeptical. Prove your case without appealing to authorities, especially authorities who do not get more money from the government IF they scare people into believing in man-made global warming.
You clearly know absolutely NOTHING about how science works in the real world.
Anyone that could show SOLID EVIDENCE that the current consensus about greenhouse gasses and global warming is fundamentally flawed would probably win a Nobel prize.
It does not help a research scientist AT ALL to jump on the bandwagon. If a legit scientist had ANY EVIDENCE that burning fossil fuels did NOT contribute to climate change, he'd probably have the most well-endowed lab on the planet. Hell, he's be like the James Bond of science. Scientists do not get an idea then make the facts fit , they look at the facts and adapt their ideas.
You keep saying I should "prove my own point" and stop "appealing to authority." What the hell are you talking about? My Research was in GC-MS stable isotope analysis os atmospheric and groundwater contaminants for the purposes of tracking point sources of pollution. While I am fully capable of doing a literature search and reading and understanding papers directly related to global warming, my own research did not address this issue directly. Are you saying it is stupid to ask experts who have devoted their professional lives to studying climate change for their opinion? Who should we ask then?? According to you apparently we should listen to think tanks funded by big industry that use unethical means to mislead the less educated masses.
In your post above you refer to the "heartland institute." They are a freaking JOKE! Just google them for god's sake:
"In April 2008, environmental journalist Richard Littlemore wrote that the Heartland Institute's list of "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares"[10] included at least 45 scientists who neither knew of their inclusion as "coauthors" of the article, nor agreed with its claims regarding global warming. Dozens of the scientists asked the Heartland Institute to remove their names from the list; for instance, Gregory Cutter of Old Dominion University wrote, "I have NO doubts... the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there." Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford wrote "Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!" [11]"
"The institute is a member organization of the Cooler Heads Coalition, "an informal and ad-hoc group focused on dispelling the myths of global warming".[4] The board of directors for the Heartland Institute includes Thomas Walton,[5] , Economic Policy Analysis Director for General Motors.[6]"
Seriously man are you kidding me?
In the most respected scientific journal on the planet (Science) the study i linked abouve shows that NOT A SINGLE PEER REVIEWED ARTICLE IN THE WORLD disagreed with the consensus position that anthropomorphic climate destabilization is REAL.
So if you think all of these "bozos" who have dedicated their lives to studing climate change (with graduate degrees from the best research universities on the planet) are not qualified to make the call, who is?
You? Plumbers? Television evangilists? I know even with my training I tend to defer to experts, especially those who have demonstrated nothing but scientific integrity.
You want me to make my case? Here it is: Every educated person willing to have their work critically reviewd by the scientific community agrees with the consensus statement. I have read the papers and I agree as well. The ONLY people that disagree are in positions that are appently funded by of HEAVILY influenced by big petroleum and big industry.
If you are secretly a research scientist who has just completed a longitudinal study on greenhouse emissions and global climate trends and have new data, then by all means bring it on and I'll listen.
If you are just another conservative who didn't pay attention in science class and are angry because you don't understand what's going on, then forgive me if I don't take you particularly seriously.
Ah, so in the real world, science works through ad hominum attacks, appeals to authorities, the "everybody's doing it argument," the "no true scotsman fallacy" and namecalling? I think I understand where you are coming from now.
I don't have to prove anything to you. I'm not convinced. YOU are. Make your case. Try to do so without the falacious reasoning, if you are in fact a scientist you ought to be able to do that.
All of YOUR supposed scientists get money from governments, and benefit from the global warming nonsense. Your sources are bought off more than mine. Billions are behing this scam.
Make your own case. Also, please disclose where the money for YOUR research came from.
Thus far you have proven nothing, all you have succeeded in doing is showing that you know how to make attacks in the name of science with no science to back it up.
Just curious about what you would consider adequate science to back up my position?
I need to make dinner with my wife but I'll be happy to come back and put up links to the most important papers in the field. What would be the point though if you are just going to say they aren't valid?
By the way your second expert opinion above is funded by Big Petroleum also.
Let me approch this from a different angle:
Logically I can see EXACTLY who stands to gain from discrediting gloabal warming: anyone who stands to lose profits through either reduced fossil fuel consumption or being forced to adopt cleaner, more expensive processes. This pretty much covers big petroleum and big industry (who I am sure are just as converned with ethical business practices as wall street types). I've already given several links showing that these interests DO fund the climate change contrarians.
Do me a favor and explain EXACTLY WHO stands to gain FINANCIALLY from making sacrifices to reduce carbon emissions. I know I don't. I love cheap abundant gas- I love 4WDs (driven them most of my life) and I love cheap airfare. I love air conditioning and lots of electronics and interior lighting. I've been on boats since i was a kid and they use an assload of fuel.
Global warming initiatives hurt the profitability of big business and reduce the amount of disposable income in everyones' wallets. They HURT the economy, which in turn hurts the amount of funding available for science. So "my supposed scientists" (which include pretty much everyone in the field on the planet) are making this global warming stuff up for....... what???
If I'm missing something, please lay the logic on me. Research scientists are middle class folks, and if there's a group that generally HATES government interference more than scientists, I haven't met them yet. They aren't stupid.. everyone wants a healthy economy and a comfortable prosperous existence. It's just that some of us aren't willing to condemn future generations to a living hell just because we can't be bothered to make some sacrifices.
So who's getting rich from this global warming "scam?" And how?? Please enlighten me, I'm all ears
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
You clearly know absolutely NOTHING about how science works in the real world.
Anyone that could show SOLID EVIDENCE that the current consensus about greenhouse gasses and global warming is fundamentally flawed would probably win a Nobel prize.
It does not help a research scientist AT ALL to jump on the bandwagon. If a legit scientist had ANY EVIDENCE that burning fossil fuels did NOT contribute to climate change, he'd probably have the most well-endowed lab on the planet. Hell, he's be like the James Bond of science. Scientists do not get an idea then make the facts fit , they look at the facts and adapt their ideas.
You keep saying I should "prove my own point" and stop "appealing to authority." What the hell are you talking about? My Research was in GC-MS stable isotope analysis os atmospheric and groundwater contaminants for the purposes of tracking point sources of pollution. While I am fully capable of doing a literature search and reading and understanding papers directly related to global warming, my own research did not address this issue directly. Are you saying it is stupid to ask experts who have devoted their professional lives to studying climate change for their opinion? Who should we ask then?? According to you apparently we should listen to think tanks funded by big industry that use unethical means to mislead the less educated masses.
In your post above you refer to the "heartland institute." They are a freaking JOKE! Just google them for god's sake:
"In April 2008, environmental journalist Richard Littlemore wrote that the Heartland Institute's list of "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares"[10] included at least 45 scientists who neither knew of their inclusion as "coauthors" of the article, nor agreed with its claims regarding global warming. Dozens of the scientists asked the Heartland Institute to remove their names from the list; for instance, Gregory Cutter of Old Dominion University wrote, "I have NO doubts... the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there." Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford wrote "Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!" [11]"
"The institute is a member organization of the Cooler Heads Coalition, "an informal and ad-hoc group focused on dispelling the myths of global warming".[4] The board of directors for the Heartland Institute includes Thomas Walton,[5] , Economic Policy Analysis Director for General Motors.[6]"
Seriously man are you kidding me?
In the most respected scientific journal on the planet (Science) the study i linked abouve shows that NOT A SINGLE PEER REVIEWED ARTICLE IN THE WORLD disagreed with the consensus position that anthropomorphic climate destabilization is REAL.
So if you think all of these "bozos" who have dedicated their lives to studing climate change (with graduate degrees from the best research universities on the planet) are not qualified to make the call, who is?
You? Plumbers? Television evangilists? I know even with my training I tend to defer to experts, especially those who have demonstrated nothing but scientific integrity.
You want me to make my case? Here it is: Every educated person willing to have their work critically reviewd by the scientific community agrees with the consensus statement. I have read the papers and I agree as well. The ONLY people that disagree are in positions that are appently funded by of HEAVILY influenced by big petroleum and big industry.
If you are secretly a research scientist who has just completed a longitudinal study on greenhouse emissions and global climate trends and have new data, then by all means bring it on and I'll listen.
If you are just another conservative who didn't pay attention in science class and are angry because you don't understand what's going on, then forgive me if I don't take you particularly seriously.
Ah, so in the real world, science works through ad hominum attacks, appeals to authorities, the "everybody's doing it argument," the "no true scotsman fallacy" and namecalling? I think I understand where you are coming from now.
I don't have to prove anything to you. I'm not convinced. YOU are. Make your case. Try to do so without the falacious reasoning, if you are in fact a scientist you ought to be able to do that.
All of YOUR supposed scientists get money from governments, and benefit from the global warming nonsense. Your sources are bought off more than mine. Billions are behing this scam.
Make your own case. Also, please disclose where the money for YOUR research came from.
Thus far you have proven nothing, all you have succeeded in doing is showing that you know how to make attacks in the name of science with no science to back it up.
No, the ad-hominum attacks are because you are being obnoxious and frustrating.
Appeals to authority aren't "everyone's doing it" they are "respected scientists who do this for a living say it."
An appeal to authority is a strong way to prove a point. I hate to be insulting because I know this will be the one point of my post you will actual argue against, but that is something you learn in a first year University class.
There is nothing false about his reasoning. Hes addressed every argument you've made. Discrediting any scientist who is government funded is rather rediculous considering the government funds a LARGE amount of science and there is so much money put into whistle blowing it would make your head spin. Just walk on any campus, you'll see 100's of posters all about #'s to call and support help if you need to blow a whistle.
His research, as he has said, is not relivant to climate change. He works on similar subjects, but nothing that relates directly.
Hes stated that every peer reviewed article disagrees with you. A peer reviewed article is one that a scientist wrote, then lots of other scientists read over and had to OK.
That is where credible information comes from.
after 6 or so years, I had to change it a little...
You clearly know absolutely NOTHING about how science works in the real world.
Anyone that could show SOLID EVIDENCE that the current consensus about greenhouse gasses and global warming is fundamentally flawed would probably win a Nobel prize.
It does not help a research scientist AT ALL to jump on the bandwagon. If a legit scientist had ANY EVIDENCE that burning fossil fuels did NOT contribute to climate change, he'd probably have the most well-endowed lab on the planet. Hell, he's be like the James Bond of science. Scientists do not get an idea then make the facts fit , they look at the facts and adapt their ideas.
You keep saying I should "prove my own point" and stop "appealing to authority." What the hell are you talking about? My Research was in GC-MS stable isotope analysis os atmospheric and groundwater contaminants for the purposes of tracking point sources of pollution. While I am fully capable of doing a literature search and reading and understanding papers directly related to global warming, my own research did not address this issue directly. Are you saying it is stupid to ask experts who have devoted their professional lives to studying climate change for their opinion? Who should we ask then?? According to you apparently we should listen to think tanks funded by big industry that use unethical means to mislead the less educated masses.
In your post above you refer to the "heartland institute." They are a freaking JOKE! Just google them for god's sake:
"In April 2008, environmental journalist Richard Littlemore wrote that the Heartland Institute's list of "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares"[10] included at least 45 scientists who neither knew of their inclusion as "coauthors" of the article, nor agreed with its claims regarding global warming. Dozens of the scientists asked the Heartland Institute to remove their names from the list; for instance, Gregory Cutter of Old Dominion University wrote, "I have NO doubts... the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there." Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford wrote "Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!" [11]"
"The institute is a member organization of the Cooler Heads Coalition, "an informal and ad-hoc group focused on dispelling the myths of global warming".[4] The board of directors for the Heartland Institute includes Thomas Walton,[5] , Economic Policy Analysis Director for General Motors.[6]"
Seriously man are you kidding me?
In the most respected scientific journal on the planet (Science) the study i linked abouve shows that NOT A SINGLE PEER REVIEWED ARTICLE IN THE WORLD disagreed with the consensus position that anthropomorphic climate destabilization is REAL.
So if you think all of these "bozos" who have dedicated their lives to studing climate change (with graduate degrees from the best research universities on the planet) are not qualified to make the call, who is?
You? Plumbers? Television evangilists? I know even with my training I tend to defer to experts, especially those who have demonstrated nothing but scientific integrity.
You want me to make my case? Here it is: Every educated person willing to have their work critically reviewd by the scientific community agrees with the consensus statement. I have read the papers and I agree as well. The ONLY people that disagree are in positions that are appently funded by of HEAVILY influenced by big petroleum and big industry.
If you are secretly a research scientist who has just completed a longitudinal study on greenhouse emissions and global climate trends and have new data, then by all means bring it on and I'll listen.
If you are just another conservative who didn't pay attention in science class and are angry because you don't understand what's going on, then forgive me if I don't take you particularly seriously.
Ah, so in the real world, science works through ad hominum attacks, appeals to authorities, the "everybody's doing it argument," the "no true scotsman fallacy" and namecalling? I think I understand where you are coming from now.
I don't have to prove anything to you. I'm not convinced. YOU are. Make your case. Try to do so without the falacious reasoning, if you are in fact a scientist you ought to be able to do that.
All of YOUR supposed scientists get money from governments, and benefit from the global warming nonsense. Your sources are bought off more than mine. Billions are behing this scam.
Make your own case. Also, please disclose where the money for YOUR research came from.
Thus far you have proven nothing, all you have succeeded in doing is showing that you know how to make attacks in the name of science with no science to back it up.
No, the ad-hominum attacks are because you are being obnoxious and frustrating.
Appeals to authority aren't "everyone's doing it" they are "respected scientists who do this for a living say it."
An appeal to authority is a strong way to prove a point. I hate to be insulting because I know this will be the one point of my post you will actual argue against, but that is something you learn in a first year University class.
There is nothing false about his reasoning. Hes addressed every argument you've made. Discrediting any scientist who is government funded is rather rediculous considering the government funds a LARGE amount of science and there is so much money put into whistle blowing it would make your head spin. Just walk on any campus, you'll see 100's of posters all about #'s to call and support help if you need to blow a whistle.
His research, as he has said, is not relivant to climate change. He works on similar subjects, but nothing that relates directly.
Hes stated that every peer reviewed article disagrees with you. A peer reviewed article is one that a scientist wrote, then lots of other scientists read over and had to OK.
That is where credible information comes from.
How am I being obnoxious? It is obnoxious to not be a sheep believing what someone else says? I asked him to make a case, I am asking you to make a case, and all he has is attacks. Seems the same with you.
make your actual case.
your "respected scientists" get more research money if they take YOUR side. That makes their opinions suspect -- easily more suspect than people who get money from industries.
Every scientist who believes in man-made global warming stands to get more money of he does so. Crediible information comes from presenting it. I'd like to see some.
This globalw arming fiasco has corrupted environmental science and we can see that in the attitudes and irrational arguments that your side is making. Real scientists do not attack people. They make a case, then they gather evidence, then they make predictions to test their theories. IF their predictions turn out wrong, it's back to the drawing board.
Thus far I am seeing no evidence, and well, we know the predictions of these bought off scientists thus far have been wrong. Plus, since we no longer are experiencing global warming, they even had to change the name to "climate change." This is pure politics, no science allowed.
Sorry, I don't see even a halfway credible case being made here. Please try and make one, instead of being an apologist for emotional personal attacks that come fromfrustration, as you yourself stated.
I am still waiting to be convinced, but I wil on;y be convinced by science and reason, not politics and emotionalism.
Ah, so in the real world, science works through ad hominum attacks, appeals to authorities, the "everybody's doing it argument," the "no true scotsman fallacy" and namecalling? I think I understand where you are coming from now.
I don't have to prove anything to you. I'm not convinced. YOU are. Make your case. Try to do so without the falacious reasoning, if you are in fact a scientist you ought to be able to do that.
All of YOUR supposed scientists get money from governments, and benefit from the global warming nonsense. Your sources are bought off more than mine. Billions are behing this scam.
Make your own case. Also, please disclose where the money for YOUR research came from.
Thus far you have proven nothing, all you have succeeded in doing is showing that you know how to make attacks in the name of science with no science to back it up.
No, the ad-hominum attacks are because you are being obnoxious and frustrating.
Appeals to authority aren't "everyone's doing it" they are "respected scientists who do this for a living say it."
An appeal to authority is a strong way to prove a point. I hate to be insulting because I know this will be the one point of my post you will actual argue against, but that is something you learn in a first year University class.
There is nothing false about his reasoning. Hes addressed every argument you've made. Discrediting any scientist who is government funded is rather rediculous considering the government funds a LARGE amount of science and there is so much money put into whistle blowing it would make your head spin. Just walk on any campus, you'll see 100's of posters all about #'s to call and support help if you need to blow a whistle.
His research, as he has said, is not relivant to climate change. He works on similar subjects, but nothing that relates directly.
Hes stated that every peer reviewed article disagrees with you. A peer reviewed article is one that a scientist wrote, then lots of other scientists read over and had to OK.
That is where credible information comes from.
How am I being obnoxious? It is obnoxious to not be a sheep believing what someone else says? I asked him to make a case, I am asking you to make a case, and all he has is attacks. Seems the same with you.
make your actual case.
your "respected scientists" get more research money if they take YOUR side. That makes their opinions suspect -- easily more suspect than people who get money from industries.
Every scientist who believes in man-made global warming stands to get more money of he does so. Crediible information comes from presenting it. I'd like to see some.
This globalw arming fiasco has corrupted environmental science and we can see that in the attitudes and irrational arguments that your side is making. Real scientists do not attack people. They make a case, then they gather evidence, then they make predictions to test their theories. IF their predictions turn out wrong, it's back to the drawing board.
Thus far I am seeing no evidence, and well, we know the predictions of these bought off scientists thus far have been wrong. Plus, since we no longer are experiencing global warming, they even had to change the name to "climate change." This is pure politics, no science allowed.
Sorry, I don't see even a halfway credible case being made here. Please try and make one, instead of being an apologist for emotional personal attacks that come fromfrustration, as you yourself stated.
I am still waiting to be convinced, but I wil on;y be convinced by science and reason, not politics and emotionalism.
No, the "respected scientists" do not get more money if they take "my side." This is just a conspiracy theory cop out.
You repeatedly state that the government funding agencies are corrupt yet never provide evidence. This is starting to sound eerily like a conspiracy theory.
You've been given lots of proof. You've been given journals that contain the information you've asked for. We can lead you to water but you keep refusing to drink. If you're not going to bother to look up the arguments were making and read the material people are providing for you fine, but don't argue they don't exists just because you refuse to read them.
You've made no claims or logical arguments yet. Multiple people have given you piles of VERY credible evidence, with the reasoning for that credibility explained, yet you still say you've yet to be convinced. I don't understand what more you could want...
after 6 or so years, I had to change it a little...
People! People! Its not Global Warming now! Its Climate Change! See we all are going to survive now!!
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
Ah, so in the real world, science works through ad hominum attacks, appeals to authorities, the "everybody's doing it argument," the "no true scotsman fallacy" and namecalling? I think I understand where you are coming from now.
I don't have to prove anything to you. I'm not convinced. YOU are. Make your case. Try to do so without the falacious reasoning, if you are in fact a scientist you ought to be able to do that.
All of YOUR supposed scientists get money from governments, and benefit from the global warming nonsense. Your sources are bought off more than mine. Billions are behing this scam.
Make your own case. Also, please disclose where the money for YOUR research came from.
Thus far you have proven nothing, all you have succeeded in doing is showing that you know how to make attacks in the name of science with no science to back it up.
No, the ad-hominum attacks are because you are being obnoxious and frustrating.
Appeals to authority aren't "everyone's doing it" they are "respected scientists who do this for a living say it."
An appeal to authority is a strong way to prove a point. I hate to be insulting because I know this will be the one point of my post you will actual argue against, but that is something you learn in a first year University class.
There is nothing false about his reasoning. Hes addressed every argument you've made. Discrediting any scientist who is government funded is rather rediculous considering the government funds a LARGE amount of science and there is so much money put into whistle blowing it would make your head spin. Just walk on any campus, you'll see 100's of posters all about #'s to call and support help if you need to blow a whistle.
His research, as he has said, is not relivant to climate change. He works on similar subjects, but nothing that relates directly.
Hes stated that every peer reviewed article disagrees with you. A peer reviewed article is one that a scientist wrote, then lots of other scientists read over and had to OK.
That is where credible information comes from.
How am I being obnoxious? It is obnoxious to not be a sheep believing what someone else says? I asked him to make a case, I am asking you to make a case, and all he has is attacks. Seems the same with you.
make your actual case.
your "respected scientists" get more research money if they take YOUR side. That makes their opinions suspect -- easily more suspect than people who get money from industries.
Every scientist who believes in man-made global warming stands to get more money of he does so. Crediible information comes from presenting it. I'd like to see some.
This globalw arming fiasco has corrupted environmental science and we can see that in the attitudes and irrational arguments that your side is making. Real scientists do not attack people. They make a case, then they gather evidence, then they make predictions to test their theories. IF their predictions turn out wrong, it's back to the drawing board.
Thus far I am seeing no evidence, and well, we know the predictions of these bought off scientists thus far have been wrong. Plus, since we no longer are experiencing global warming, they even had to change the name to "climate change." This is pure politics, no science allowed.
Sorry, I don't see even a halfway credible case being made here. Please try and make one, instead of being an apologist for emotional personal attacks that come fromfrustration, as you yourself stated.
I am still waiting to be convinced, but I wil on;y be convinced by science and reason, not politics and emotionalism.
No, the "respected scientists" do not get more money if they take "my side." This is just a conspiracy theory cop out.
You repeatedly state that the government funding agencies are corrupt yet never provide evidence. This is starting to sound eerily like a conspiracy theory.
You've been given lots of proof. You've been given journals that contain the information you've asked for. We can lead you to water but you keep refusing to drink. If you're not going to bother to look up the arguments were making and read the material people are providing for you fine, but don't argue they don't exists just because you refuse to read them.
You've made no claims or logical arguments yet. Multiple people have given you piles of VERY credible evidence, with the reasoning for that credibility explained, yet you still say you've yet to be convinced. I don't understand what more you could want...
Ah, now we move on t the next fallacy, the one known as appeal to ridicule.
Why is a conspiracy theory to distrust government funding of science, but it is reasonable to distrust funding from oil companies?
You mean oil companies conspire to spread falsehoods, but governments do not? Governments are moral and can not corrupt science based upon policy desires?
I'm not here to make an argument. I want to be convinced. Show me some uncorrupted evidence, and then show me a theory that makes accurate predictions based upon that evidence.
Thus far I am seeing nothing but emotionalism and other fallacies true believers in science would never make.
Forget global warming. Entirely. Doesn't matter if it's man made or not there are more pressing issues at hand that ARE man made
The rise of CO2 levels is causing acidification of the oceans, killing off oxygen producing algae, which in turn causes higher CO2 levels. Obviously you see the problem here. And don't even try saying that man isn't raising the CO2 level in the atmosphere, we burn carbon that's been underground for millenia, that releases CO2. Done deal.
We're also on the precipice of massive desertification of most of the world's farmland, as it's being overtaxed by our exploded population and wildly inefficient diet.
We're running out of fresh water.
I could think of other ways the world is dieing and it's all our fault, but I think that's enough. I wouldn't want to put too much effort into it, of course.
True, but debates like this are important because they speak to peoples' willingness to take responsibility for fixing big problems.
Yes, it is probably too late to keep the world from becoming a living hell. I still feel like it is worthwhile to try to do the right thing.
It's funny that some of the posters here are talking about acting like "sheep"... and yet they are the ones insisting that everything is fine, that only the sensationalists are worried.
Is it worth it to try to get through to people? Maybe. I think so.
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
Forget global warming. Entirely. Doesn't matter if it's man made or not there are more pressing issues at hand that ARE man made
The rise of CO2 levels is causing acidification of the oceans, killing off oxygen producing algae, which in turn causes higher CO2 levels. Obviously you see the problem here. And don't even try saying that man isn't raising the CO2 level in the atmosphere, we burn carbon that's been underground for millenia, that releases CO2. Done deal.
We're also on the precipice of massive desertification of most of the world's farmland, as it's being overtaxed by our exploded population and wildly inefficient diet.
We're running out of fresh water.
I could think of other ways the world is dieing and it's all our fault, but I think that's enough. I wouldn't want to put too much effort into it, of course.
True, but debates like this are important because they speak to peoples' willingness to take responsibility for fixing big problems.
Yes, it is probably too late to keep the world from becoming a living hell. I still feel like it is worthwhile to try to do the right thing.
It's funny that some of the posters here are talking about acting like "sheep"... and yet they are the ones insisting that everything is fine, that only the sensationalists are worried.
Is it worth it to try to get through to people? Maybe. I think so.
So make your case without resorting to fallacies. Be the scientist you claim to be. I want to believe.
good to see you are back in the debate. Just curious about what you would consider adequate science to back up my position? I need to make dinner with my wife but I'll be happy to come back and put up links to the most important papers in the field. What would be the point though if you are just going to say they aren't valid? By the way your second expert opinion above is funded by Big Petroleum also. Let me approch this from a different angle: Logically I can see EXACTLY who stands to gain from discrediting gloabal warming: anyone who stands to lose profits through either reduced fossil fuel consumption or being forced to adopt cleaner, more expensive processes. This pretty much covers big petroleum and big industry (who I am sure are just as converned with ethical business practices as wall street types). I've already given several links showing that these interests DO fund the climate change contrarians. Do me a favor and explain EXACTLY WHO stands to gain FINANCIALLY from making sacrifices to reduce carbon emissions. I know I don't. I love cheap abundant gas- I love 4WDs (driven them most of my life) and I love cheap airfare. I love air conditioning and lots of electronics and interior lighting. I've been on boats since i was a kid and they use an assload of fuel. Global warming initiatives hurt the profitability of big business and reduce the amount of disposable income in everyones' wallets. They HURT the economy, which in turn hurts the amount of funding available for science. So "my supposed scientists" (which include pretty much everyone in the field on the planet) are making this global warming stuff up for....... what??? If I'm missing something, please lay the logic on me. Research scientists are middle class folks, and if there's a group that generally HATES government interference more than scientists, I haven't met them yet. They aren't stupid.. everyone wants a healthy economy and a comfortable prosperous existence. It's just that some of us aren't willing to condemn future generations to a living hell just because we can't be bothered to make some sacrifices. So who's getting rich from this global warming "scam?" And how?? Please enlighten me, I'm all ears
You never replied to this post.
Also, I have to ask... what would you consider credible proof? I know the scientists that I've worked with are beholden to no one. I also believe that if there were real evidence that global warming is bunk that there is NO WAY the scientific community would keep that secret. You don't seem to understand that most scientists are willing to sacrifice their LIVES for the TRUTH. And yet there is not ONE SINGLE CREDIBLE STUDY that has ever contradicted the current consnsus.
If you are waiting for me to go out and do my own field work I'll have to let you down. Just curious, what research experience do you have?
Edit: left some words out
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
Originally posted by Fishermage So make your case without resorting to fallacies. Be the scientist you claim to be. I want to believe.
I thought that said "Be the sorcerer you claim to be" for a while. Very well, then. Watch and be amazed, as I magically pull facts from my ass.
www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ Atmospheric CO2 levels in Mauna Loa. Granted it's a volcano, but I guess they take air samples there for a reason.
seekerblog.com/archives/20090317/increasing-atmospheric-co2-levels-linked-to-ocean-acidification/ As any chemistry teacher will tell you, increase the partial pressure of CO2 over water, you get increased CO2 solubility. And when CO2 is in solution with water, it forms carbolic acid. Read the article to see why our major shellfish sources are DISSOLVING BEFORE OUR EYES. Also the algea thing i mentioned earlier. And do you honestly think that whole ceolocanth thing a few years back was normal? Things we didn't even know existed are dieing because of this.
how does anything you presented prove that global warming is man-made and that it is a serious problem that we have to do something about?
I never contested your belief in the acidification of water.
I myself said that the whole global warming nonsense is taking away time and money from the real environmental problems we should be dealing with. Your issue might be one of them.
Funny thing about carbon dioxide. It's a greenhouse gas AND dissolves in water, dropping pH.
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
good to see you are back in the debate. Just curious about what you would consider adequate science to back up my position? I need to make dinner with my wife but I'll be happy to come back and put up links to the most important papers in the field. What would be the point though if you are just going to say they aren't valid? By the way your second expert opinion above is funded by Big Petroleum also. Let me approch this from a different angle: Logically I can see EXACTLY who stands to gain from discrediting gloabal warming: anyone who stands to lose profits through either reduced fossil fuel consumption or being forced to adopt cleaner, more expensive processes. This pretty much covers big petroleum and big industry (who I am sure are just as converned with ethical business practices as wall street types). I've already given several links showing that these interests DO fund the climate change contrarians. Do me a favor and explain EXACTLY WHO stands to gain FINANCIALLY from making sacrifices to reduce carbon emissions. I know I don't. I love cheap abundant gas- I love 4WDs (driven them most of my life) and I love cheap airfare. I love air conditioning and lots of electronics and interior lighting. I've been on boats since i was a kid and they use an assload of fuel. Global warming initiatives hurt the profitability of big business and reduce the amount of disposable income in everyones' wallets. They HURT the economy, which in turn hurts the amount of funding available for science. So "my supposed scientists" (which include pretty much everyone in the field on the planet) are making this global warming stuff up for....... what??? If I'm missing something, please lay the logic on me. Research scientists are middle class folks, and if there's a group that generally HATES government interference more than scientists, I haven't met them yet. They aren't stupid.. everyone wants a healthy economy and a comfortable prosperous existence. It's just that some of us aren't willing to condemn future generations to a living hell just because we can't be bothered to make some sacrifices. So who's getting rich from this global warming "scam?" And how?? Please enlighten me, I'm all ears
You never replied to this post.
Also, I have to ask... what would you consider credible proof? I know the scientists that I've worked with are beholden to no one. I also believe that if there were real evidence that global warming is bunk that there is NO WAY the scientific community would keep that secret. You don't seem to understand that most scientists are willing to sacrifice their LIVES for the TRUTH. And yet there is not ONE SINGLE CREDIBLE STUDY that has ever contradicted the current consnsus.
If you are waiting for me to go out and do my own field work I'll have to let you down. Just curious, what research experience do you have?
Edit: left some words out
Again, tell me what proof would satisfy you and I'll do my best to provide it. Really curious what you have to say to the rest of this post.
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
good to see you are back in the debate. Just curious about what you would consider adequate science to back up my position? I need to make dinner with my wife but I'll be happy to come back and put up links to the most important papers in the field. What would be the point though if you are just going to say they aren't valid? By the way your second expert opinion above is funded by Big Petroleum also. Let me approch this from a different angle: Logically I can see EXACTLY who stands to gain from discrediting gloabal warming: anyone who stands to lose profits through either reduced fossil fuel consumption or being forced to adopt cleaner, more expensive processes. This pretty much covers big petroleum and big industry (who I am sure are just as converned with ethical business practices as wall street types). I've already given several links showing that these interests DO fund the climate change contrarians. Do me a favor and explain EXACTLY WHO stands to gain FINANCIALLY from making sacrifices to reduce carbon emissions. I know I don't. I love cheap abundant gas- I love 4WDs (driven them most of my life) and I love cheap airfare. I love air conditioning and lots of electronics and interior lighting. I've been on boats since i was a kid and they use an assload of fuel. Global warming initiatives hurt the profitability of big business and reduce the amount of disposable income in everyones' wallets. They HURT the economy, which in turn hurts the amount of funding available for science. So "my supposed scientists" (which include pretty much everyone in the field on the planet) are making this global warming stuff up for....... what??? If I'm missing something, please lay the logic on me. Research scientists are middle class folks, and if there's a group that generally HATES government interference more than scientists, I haven't met them yet. They aren't stupid.. everyone wants a healthy economy and a comfortable prosperous existence. It's just that some of us aren't willing to condemn future generations to a living hell just because we can't be bothered to make some sacrifices. So who's getting rich from this global warming "scam?" And how?? Please enlighten me, I'm all ears
You never replied to this post.
Also, I have to ask... what would you consider credible proof? I know the scientists that I've worked with are beholden to no one. I also believe that if there were real evidence that global warming is bunk that there is NO WAY the scientific community would keep that secret. You don't seem to understand that most scientists are willing to sacrifice their LIVES for the TRUTH. And yet there is not ONE SINGLE CREDIBLE STUDY that has ever contradicted the current consnsus.
If you are waiting for me to go out and do my own field work I'll have to let you down. Just curious, what research experience do you have?
Edit: left some words out
Again, tell me what proof would satisfy you and I'll do my best to provide it. Really curious what you have to say to the rest of this post.
is this stuff being addressed to me? You don't say you are saying it to me. Your behavior here seems to show that it is...but it is unclear.
I know some of my sources are backed by petroleum, and I don't have a problem with that. I trust big oil way more than I trust big government, which is funding YOUR side.
Scientists are against government intervention? where? when? which ones? name names please.
Please, show me one libertarian scientist who agrees with you about this. Show me one conservative. Show me one person who isn't a big government dude who agrees with you.
What proof would satisfy me? Easy.
First, I want evidence that shows that man-made carbon caused global warming (not merely a "correlation but true causation), then I want to see that it causes global warming to be bad enough so we need to do something about it, then I want to see how your theories have predictive value.
Then you need to explain other warming trends that occurred before industrialization, and why this time it is unique and we must do something about it.
That would be a start.
Attempting to discredit the opposition through a discussion of funding is a moot point, which was my point of throwing the funding nonsense back at you. It is ad hominum attack. Please show me YOUR evidence. I am the one being the skeptic -- make the case.
Also I never said scientists are getting rich -- I said they get more funding if they are on one side of this than the other. Scientists need to get money to do research -- I see no superiority of government dollars than to industry dollars. Both are equally corrupting.
Again that was in answer to your ad hominum attack on the scientists who get money from oil companies.
Just make a case without fallacies and we can get started.
Originally posted by Fishermage how does anything you presented prove that global warming is man-made and that it is a serious problem that we have to do something about? I never contested your belief in the acidification of water. I myself said that the whole global warming nonsense is taking away time and money from the real environmental problems we should be dealing with. Your issue might be one of them.
I'm saying it doesn't matter whether it's real or not. There are so many variables including volcanic activity, airplanes changing the weather currents to the point where we don't actually know what they are naturally anymore, sunspots, cow farts, aliens, cats and dogs living together...but if you solve the acification of the oceans (which definitely 100% does exist), solve global warming (which may or may not exist) at the same time since they're both in theory caused by the same thing.
Also:
That's certainly possible, but it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. If you want to start a thread about ocean acidification, cool beans.
Picture is stupid and the line included in it is moronic.
Obama tools...dumber then the dirt and not afraid to show it.
When calling people stupid it is best not to misspell words.
Fishermage, fine. I'll dig up the best papers in the field if I have time tomorrow. Will be a good refresher on the state of the science. also get you some info on scientists against govt intervention. Don't have time for a full lit search tonight.
One thing I'm curious about.. if you say the government is influencing reasearch through funding, shouldn't most of the climate reasearch done in the US for the past 8 years sort of support the conservative position in this issue?
I'm out for the night.
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
There is a very simple experiment you can do at home for, say $300. Build 2 ,1' Plexi-glass cubes, have a valve come out of each. Rent a Oxygen tank and a CO2 tank (chem shops do this a decent prices). Place a sensor end thermometer in each cube, seal cube (needs to be air tight). Grab 2 equal wattage work lamps (same brand bulbs and all). Hook both tanks to the corresponding boxes. Fill each box to say 15 psi, turn lamp on, close valves. Have each lamp on for a set time (say 30 min), turn lamps off. Watch and record how fast each box cools. Fairly easy, no?
Edit: If you feel nervous of using O2, you can just use the CO2, and a standard air compresser, but results will not be as dramatic.
Major or Current Characters AC - The Brute lvl 85 macer -HG (retired) SWG - Lihone Su'alkn Master Ranger/ MCH - Flurry (Retired) EVE - Sulone - Cruiser Lover (Retired) LOTRO - Sandric lvl 50 Burg (and others)- Brandywine (Retired) GW2 - Sandric lvl 80 Thief - Dragonbrand (Retired) NeverWinter - Sandric lvl 60 Rogue - Dragonshard (Retired) Archage - Sandric lvl 50 everything - Naima (Active) Others (Lots) (Retired)
Picture is stupid and the line included in it is moronic.
Obama tools...dumber then the dirt and not afraid to show it.
When calling people stupid it is best not to misspell words.
Fishermage, fine. I'll dig up the best papers in the field if I have time tomorrow. Will be a good refresher on the state of the science. also get you some info on scientists against govt intervention. Don't have time for a full lit search tonight.
One thing I'm curious about.. if you say the government is influencing reasearch through funding, shouldn't most of the climate reasearch done in the US for the past 8 years sort of support the conservative position in this issue?
I'm out for the night.
No, because regardless of the administration in power, government promotes itself. That is how government funding of the sciences has corrupted the whole business of science.
At any rate I look forward to real information.
EDIT: you conveniently forget however, that you were the one who started this nonsense about the corruption of the science through funding, by dicsounting what people said because they took monet from big oil. If big oil corrupts science, big government can corrupt science even more.
No, the "respected scientists" do not get more money if they take "my side." This is just a conspiracy theory cop out.
You repeatedly state that the government funding agencies are corrupt yet never provide evidence. This is starting to sound eerily like a conspiracy theory.
You've been given lots of proof. You've been given journals that contain the information you've asked for. We can lead you to water but you keep refusing to drink. If you're not going to bother to look up the arguments were making and read the material people are providing for you fine, but don't argue they don't exists just because you refuse to read them.
You've made no claims or logical arguments yet. Multiple people have given you piles of VERY credible evidence, with the reasoning for that credibility explained, yet you still say you've yet to be convinced. I don't understand what more you could want...
Ah, now we move on t the next fallacy, the one known as appeal to ridicule.
Why is a conspiracy theory to distrust government funding of science, but it is reasonable to distrust funding from oil companies?
You mean oil companies conspire to spread falsehoods, but governments do not? Governments are moral and can not corrupt science based upon policy desires?
I'm not here to make an argument. I want to be convinced. Show me some uncorrupted evidence, and then show me a theory that makes accurate predictions based upon that evidence.
Thus far I am seeing nothing but emotionalism and other fallacies true believers in science would never make.
I did not create a straw man out of your arguement. Distrusting any research that is funded by an industry or government is silly.
Scientists are notoriously relentless in their persuit of being right. Im simply calling it a conspiracy theory because I think its rediculous; you've been showing me absoluty no respect so I feel no obligation to be nice, respectful, or perfectly percise. If you feel like nit-picking my sentence structure and choice of words, go for it, but it contributes nothing to this thread.
Your very simply dismissing ideas, evidence and studies purely on the basis that their money came from people with an interest.
I don't know where your finding emotional arguments. Nor has anybody arguing with you been using any fallacies in their arguments. People may have attacked you on the side, but their argument never hinged on the statement that your being rediculous.
Neither oil companies nor governments have a sizeable influence on the people they fund. As I have said earlier, as a researcher you have "whistle blowing" mentioned constatly. Not to mention, as said earlier, if somebody was to find something actually solid and conclusive evidence for one side of the argument, it would get out. Its a HUGE thing... Their name would be in the histroy books.
If you want to nit-pick fallacies, your building straw man out of peoples arguments by ignoring most of the post and simply summing it up as an insult and a fallacy. Your throwing a red herring ad hominem attack when you claim were being emotional and that "real believers in science" would never say what we say.
Not to mention your poisoning the well when we discuss scientific papers by claiming the government funding corrupts the research. I'm hoping Enkindu finds some interesting papers, I've been interested for a while in digging through papers but being a Computer Science major and knowing mostly Mathmaticians and Biochemists/Biologists I really have nobody whos really up to date in the field.
But Im out for the night, I think its pointless untill Enkidu posts the papers, then we can see whats left after that.
after 6 or so years, I had to change it a little...
No, the "respected scientists" do not get more money if they take "my side." This is just a conspiracy theory cop out.
You repeatedly state that the government funding agencies are corrupt yet never provide evidence. This is starting to sound eerily like a conspiracy theory.
You've been given lots of proof. You've been given journals that contain the information you've asked for. We can lead you to water but you keep refusing to drink. If you're not going to bother to look up the arguments were making and read the material people are providing for you fine, but don't argue they don't exists just because you refuse to read them.
You've made no claims or logical arguments yet. Multiple people have given you piles of VERY credible evidence, with the reasoning for that credibility explained, yet you still say you've yet to be convinced. I don't understand what more you could want...
Ah, now we move on t the next fallacy, the one known as appeal to ridicule.
Why is a conspiracy theory to distrust government funding of science, but it is reasonable to distrust funding from oil companies?
You mean oil companies conspire to spread falsehoods, but governments do not? Governments are moral and can not corrupt science based upon policy desires?
I'm not here to make an argument. I want to be convinced. Show me some uncorrupted evidence, and then show me a theory that makes accurate predictions based upon that evidence.
Thus far I am seeing nothing but emotionalism and other fallacies true believers in science would never make.
I did not create a straw man out of your arguement. Distrusting any research that is funded by an industry or government is silly.
Scientists are notoriously relentless in their persuit of being right. Im simply calling it a conspiracy theory because I think its rediculous; you've been showing me absoluty no respect so I feel no obligation to be nice, respectful, or perfectly percise. If you feel like nit-picking my sentence structure and choice of words, go for it, but it contributes nothing to this thread.
Your very simply dismissing ideas, evidence and studies purely on the basis that their money came from people with an interest.
I don't know where your finding emotional arguments. Nor has anybody arguing with you been using any fallacies in their arguments. People may have attacked you on the side, but their argument never hinged on the statement that your being rediculous.
Neither oil companies nor governments have a sizeable influence on the people they fund. As I have said earlier, as a researcher you have "whistle blowing" mentioned constatly. Not to mention, as said earlier, if somebody was to find something actually solid and conclusive evidence for one side of the argument, it would get out. Its a HUGE thing... Their name would be in the histroy books.
If you want to nit-pick fallacies, your building straw man out of peoples arguments by ignoring most of the post and simply summing it up as an insult and a fallacy. Your throwing a red herring ad hominem attack when you claim were being emotional and that "real believers in science" would never say what we say.
Not to mention your poisoning the well when we discuss scientific papers by claiming the government funding corrupts the research. I'm hoping Enkindu finds some interesting papers, I've been interested for a while in digging through papers but being a Computer Science major and knowing mostly Mathmaticians and Biochemists/Biologists I really have nobody whos really up to date in the field.
But Im out for the night, I think its pointless untill Enkidu posts the papers, then we can see whats left after that.
I am only claiming that government corrupts research IN RESPONSE to Endiku implying that industry funding corrupts research. Why didn't you go after HIM when he did the first poisoning of the well, but instead went after my response to HIM doing it. I specifically said why I brought up government funding being as corrupting as business, not more.
I have looked at both sides myself, and find that I am on the side that is skeptical of man-made global warming, skeptical that is is a problem, and skeptical that we should use government force to "do something" about it."
I will state it clearly for you: I do not know if the amount of Carbon Dioxide we release is a significant factor in the climate. I do not see enough evidence to prove that. I see the "evidence" on both sides tend to cancel each other out. The day someone convinces me with real evidence that I can see for myself is the day I change my mind -- same as every major change in my life. Evidence will convince me.
Also, the minute they can actually come up with a theory that has real predictive value, I will change.
Now, on to the rest of your charges of my supposed use of fallacies. I am not creating a straw man, I am not positing anything -- I am looking to be convinced by evidence which I have not seen. Instead of making a charge, please show where I did what you are saying.
I am claiming people are using emotionalism when they use an appeal to fear. That's not a red herring, it's stating what they are doing. It is not a substitution for the argument, it is in addition to the argument. real believers in science do not attack people. I have not attacked anyone, but Endiku came on saying "I am a real scientist!" and then started attacking people. I merely called him on that. Sabian said, "it is okay to lie about this," so I called him on that. None of that is part of my argument -- those were observations.
I did not discount the evidence people gave with attacks. I discounted evidence with evidence. In response, Endiku said "those guys are liars because they get money from big oil."
That BEGAN the discussion of funding, but you, for some reason, are ignoring that.
The moment someone presents evidence and deals with all criticism without launching the attack, "those guys are funded by big oil," I'll be very interested in what they have to say.
I'm still waiting. I can't wait to see what he's got.
Comments
Ya lost me when you said the sun and warming aren't related.
Although 19% of the American Population believe in Global Warming and the scientific community have not come to accept the theory of Global Warming as Law; the EPA has issued the following:
EPA Finds Greenhouse Gases Pose Threat to Public Health, Welfare / Proposed Finding Comes in Response to 2007 Supreme Court Ruling
Release date: 04/17/2009
Contact Information: Cathy Milbourn, 202-564-4355 / 7849 / milbourn.cathy@epa.gov; En español: Lina Younes, 202-564-4355 / younes.lina@epa.gov
(Washington, D.C. – April 17, 2009) After a thorough scientific review ordered in 2007 by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a proposed finding Friday that greenhouse gases contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health or welfare.
The proposed finding, which now moves to a public comment period, identified six greenhouse gases that pose a potential threat.
“This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations. Fortunately, it follows President Obama’s call for a low carbon economy and strong leadership in Congress on clean energy and climate legislation,” said Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “This pollution problem has a solution – one that will create millions of green jobs and end our country’s dependence on foreign oil.”
As the proposed endangerment finding states, “In both magnitude and probability, climate change is an enormous problem. The greenhouse gases that are responsible for it endanger public health and welfare within the meaning of the Clean Air Act.”
EPA’s proposed endangerment finding is based on rigorous, peer-reviewed scientific analysis of six gases – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride – that have been the subject of intensive analysis by scientists around the world. The science clearly shows that concentrations of these gases are at unprecedented levels as a result of human emissions, and these high levels are very likely the cause of the increase in average temperatures and other changes in our climate.
The scientific analysis also confirms that climate change impacts human health in several ways. Findings from a recent EPA study titled “Assessment of the Impacts of Global Change on Regional U.S. Air Quality: A Synthesis of Climate Change Impacts on Ground-Level Ozone,” for example, suggest that climate change may lead to higher concentrations of ground-level ozone, a harmful pollutant. Additional impacts of climate change include, but are not limited to:
* increased drought;
* more heavy downpours and flooding;
* more frequent and intense heat waves and wildfires;
* greater sea level rise;
* more intense storms; and
* harm to water resources, agriculture, wildlife and ecosystems.
In proposing the finding, Administrator Jackson also took into account the disproportionate impact climate change has on the health of certain segments of the population, such as the poor, the very young, the elderly, those already in poor health, the disabled, those living alone and/or indigenous populations dependent on one or a few resources.
In addition to threatening human health, the analysis finds that climate change also has serious national security implications. Consistent with this proposed finding, in 2007, 11 retired U.S. generals and admirals signed a report from the Center for a New American Security stating that climate change “presents significant national security challenges for the United States.” Escalating violence in destabilized regions can be incited and fomented by an increasing scarcity of resources – including water. This lack of resources, driven by climate change patterns, then drives massive migration to more stabilized regions of the world.
The proposed endangerment finding now enters the public comment period, which is the next step in the deliberative process EPA must undertake before issuing final findings. Today’s proposed finding does not include any proposed regulations. Before taking any steps to reduce greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, EPA would conduct an appropriate process and consider stakeholder input. Notwithstanding this required regulatory process, both President Obama and Administrator Jackson have repeatedly indicated their preference for comprehensive legislation to address this issue and create the framework for a clean energy economy.
yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/0EF7DF675805295D8525759B00566924
EEEEE-PAAAAAAAAAA!!!
EEEEE-PAAAAAAAAAA!!!
- Grandpa Simpson
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
Apparently I lost you much earlier than you think because I never said the sun and warming aren't related.
This thread has cited NASA studies as "evidence" that "global warming is a fraud."
Above is a link to direct quotes from a NASA climatologist putting the contributions of solar variation to climate change in perspective.
No sense in reposting it, try looking at the article and reading for yourself.
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
Appeals to authority are nonsense. A real scientist would know this. YOU are making assertions here. WE are being skeptical. Prove your case without appealing to authorities, especially authorities who do not get more money from the government IF they scare people into believing in man-made global warming.
You clearly know absolutely NOTHING about how science works in the real world.
Anyone that could show SOLID EVIDENCE that the current consensus about greenhouse gasses and global warming is fundamentally flawed would probably win a Nobel prize.
It does not help a research scientist AT ALL to jump on the bandwagon. If a legit scientist had ANY EVIDENCE that burning fossil fuels did NOT contribute to climate change, he'd probably have the most well-endowed lab on the planet. Hell, he's be like the James Bond of science. Scientists do not get an idea then make the facts fit , they look at the facts and adapt their ideas.
You keep saying I should "prove my own point" and stop "appealing to authority." What the hell are you talking about? My Research was in GC-MS stable isotope analysis os atmospheric and groundwater contaminants for the purposes of tracking point sources of pollution. While I am fully capable of doing a literature search and reading and understanding papers directly related to global warming, my own research did not address this issue directly. Are you saying it is stupid to ask experts who have devoted their professional lives to studying climate change for their opinion? Who should we ask then?? According to you apparently we should listen to think tanks funded by big industry that use unethical means to mislead the less educated masses.
In your post above you refer to the "heartland institute." They are a freaking JOKE! Just google them for god's sake:
"In April 2008, environmental journalist Richard Littlemore wrote that the Heartland Institute's list of "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares"[10] included at least 45 scientists who neither knew of their inclusion as "coauthors" of the article, nor agreed with its claims regarding global warming. Dozens of the scientists asked the Heartland Institute to remove their names from the list; for instance, Gregory Cutter of Old Dominion University wrote, "I have NO doubts... the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there." Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford wrote "Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!" [11]"
"The institute is a member organization of the Cooler Heads Coalition, "an informal and ad-hoc group focused on dispelling the myths of global warming".[4] The board of directors for the Heartland Institute includes Thomas Walton,[5] , Economic Policy Analysis Director for General Motors.[6]"
Seriously man are you kidding me?
In the most respected scientific journal on the planet (Science) the study i linked abouve shows that NOT A SINGLE PEER REVIEWED ARTICLE IN THE WORLD disagreed with the consensus position that anthropomorphic climate destabilization is REAL.
So if you think all of these "bozos" who have dedicated their lives to studing climate change (with graduate degrees from the best research universities on the planet) are not qualified to make the call, who is?
You? Plumbers? Television evangilists? I know even with my training I tend to defer to experts, especially those who have demonstrated nothing but scientific integrity.
You want me to make my case? Here it is: Every educated person willing to have their work critically reviewd by the scientific community agrees with the consensus statement. I have read the papers and I agree as well. The ONLY people that disagree are in positions that are appently funded by of HEAVILY influenced by big petroleum and big industry.
If you are secretly a research scientist who has just completed a longitudinal study on greenhouse emissions and global climate trends and have new data, then by all means bring it on and I'll listen.
If you are just another conservative who didn't pay attention in science class and are angry because you don't understand what's going on, then forgive me if I don't take you particularly seriously.
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
Appeals to authority are nonsense. A real scientist would know this. YOU are making assertions here. WE are being skeptical. Prove your case without appealing to authorities, especially authorities who do not get more money from the government IF they scare people into believing in man-made global warming.
You clearly know absolutely NOTHING about how science works in the real world.
Anyone that could show SOLID EVIDENCE that the current consensus about greenhouse gasses and global warming is fundamentally flawed would probably win a Nobel prize.
It does not help a research scientist AT ALL to jump on the bandwagon. If a legit scientist had ANY EVIDENCE that burning fossil fuels did NOT contribute to climate change, he'd probably have the most well-endowed lab on the planet. Hell, he's be like the James Bond of science. Scientists do not get an idea then make the facts fit , they look at the facts and adapt their ideas.
You keep saying I should "prove my own point" and stop "appealing to authority." What the hell are you talking about? My Research was in GC-MS stable isotope analysis os atmospheric and groundwater contaminants for the purposes of tracking point sources of pollution. While I am fully capable of doing a literature search and reading and understanding papers directly related to global warming, my own research did not address this issue directly. Are you saying it is stupid to ask experts who have devoted their professional lives to studying climate change for their opinion? Who should we ask then?? According to you apparently we should listen to think tanks funded by big industry that use unethical means to mislead the less educated masses.
In your post above you refer to the "heartland institute." They are a freaking JOKE! Just google them for god's sake:
"In April 2008, environmental journalist Richard Littlemore wrote that the Heartland Institute's list of "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares"[10] included at least 45 scientists who neither knew of their inclusion as "coauthors" of the article, nor agreed with its claims regarding global warming. Dozens of the scientists asked the Heartland Institute to remove their names from the list; for instance, Gregory Cutter of Old Dominion University wrote, "I have NO doubts... the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there." Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford wrote "Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!" [11]"
"The institute is a member organization of the Cooler Heads Coalition, "an informal and ad-hoc group focused on dispelling the myths of global warming".[4] The board of directors for the Heartland Institute includes Thomas Walton,[5] , Economic Policy Analysis Director for General Motors.[6]"
Seriously man are you kidding me?
In the most respected scientific journal on the planet (Science) the study i linked abouve shows that NOT A SINGLE PEER REVIEWED ARTICLE IN THE WORLD disagreed with the consensus position that anthropomorphic climate destabilization is REAL.
So if you think all of these "bozos" who have dedicated their lives to studing climate change (with graduate degrees from the best research universities on the planet) are not qualified to make the call, who is?
You? Plumbers? Television evangilists? I know even with my training I tend to defer to experts, especially those who have demonstrated nothing but scientific integrity.
You want me to make my case? Here it is: Every educated person willing to have their work critically reviewd by the scientific community agrees with the consensus statement. I have read the papers and I agree as well. The ONLY people that disagree are in positions that are appently funded by of HEAVILY influenced by big petroleum and big industry.
If you are secretly a research scientist who has just completed a longitudinal study on greenhouse emissions and global climate trends and have new data, then by all means bring it on and I'll listen.
If you are just another conservative who didn't pay attention in science class and are angry because you don't understand what's going on, then forgive me if I don't take you particularly seriously.
Ah, so in the real world, science works through ad hominum attacks, appeals to authorities, the "everybody's doing it argument," the "no true scotsman fallacy" and namecalling? I think I understand where you are coming from now.
I don't have to prove anything to you. I'm not convinced. YOU are. Make your case. Try to do so without the falacious reasoning, if you are in fact a scientist you ought to be able to do that.
All of YOUR supposed scientists get money from governments, and benefit from the global warming nonsense. Your sources are bought off more than mine. Billions are behing this scam.
Make your own case. Also, please disclose where the money for YOUR research came from.
Thus far you have proven nothing, all you have succeeded in doing is showing that you know how to make attacks in the name of science with no science to back it up.
fishermage.blogspot.com
good to see you are back in the debate.
Just curious about what you would consider adequate science to back up my position?
I need to make dinner with my wife but I'll be happy to come back and put up links to the most important papers in the field. What would be the point though if you are just going to say they aren't valid?
By the way your second expert opinion above is funded by Big Petroleum also.
Let me approch this from a different angle:
Logically I can see EXACTLY who stands to gain from discrediting gloabal warming: anyone who stands to lose profits through either reduced fossil fuel consumption or being forced to adopt cleaner, more expensive processes. This pretty much covers big petroleum and big industry (who I am sure are just as converned with ethical business practices as wall street types). I've already given several links showing that these interests DO fund the climate change contrarians.
Do me a favor and explain EXACTLY WHO stands to gain FINANCIALLY from making sacrifices to reduce carbon emissions. I know I don't. I love cheap abundant gas- I love 4WDs (driven them most of my life) and I love cheap airfare. I love air conditioning and lots of electronics and interior lighting. I've been on boats since i was a kid and they use an assload of fuel.
Global warming initiatives hurt the profitability of big business and reduce the amount of disposable income in everyones' wallets. They HURT the economy, which in turn hurts the amount of funding available for science. So "my supposed scientists" (which include pretty much everyone in the field on the planet) are making this global warming stuff up for....... what???
If I'm missing something, please lay the logic on me. Research scientists are middle class folks, and if there's a group that generally HATES government interference more than scientists, I haven't met them yet. They aren't stupid.. everyone wants a healthy economy and a comfortable prosperous existence. It's just that some of us aren't willing to condemn future generations to a living hell just because we can't be bothered to make some sacrifices.
So who's getting rich from this global warming "scam?" And how?? Please enlighten me, I'm all ears
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
You clearly know absolutely NOTHING about how science works in the real world.
Anyone that could show SOLID EVIDENCE that the current consensus about greenhouse gasses and global warming is fundamentally flawed would probably win a Nobel prize.
It does not help a research scientist AT ALL to jump on the bandwagon. If a legit scientist had ANY EVIDENCE that burning fossil fuels did NOT contribute to climate change, he'd probably have the most well-endowed lab on the planet. Hell, he's be like the James Bond of science. Scientists do not get an idea then make the facts fit , they look at the facts and adapt their ideas.
You keep saying I should "prove my own point" and stop "appealing to authority." What the hell are you talking about? My Research was in GC-MS stable isotope analysis os atmospheric and groundwater contaminants for the purposes of tracking point sources of pollution. While I am fully capable of doing a literature search and reading and understanding papers directly related to global warming, my own research did not address this issue directly. Are you saying it is stupid to ask experts who have devoted their professional lives to studying climate change for their opinion? Who should we ask then?? According to you apparently we should listen to think tanks funded by big industry that use unethical means to mislead the less educated masses.
In your post above you refer to the "heartland institute." They are a freaking JOKE! Just google them for god's sake:
"In April 2008, environmental journalist Richard Littlemore wrote that the Heartland Institute's list of "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares"[10] included at least 45 scientists who neither knew of their inclusion as "coauthors" of the article, nor agreed with its claims regarding global warming. Dozens of the scientists asked the Heartland Institute to remove their names from the list; for instance, Gregory Cutter of Old Dominion University wrote, "I have NO doubts... the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there." Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford wrote "Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!" [11]"
"The institute is a member organization of the Cooler Heads Coalition, "an informal and ad-hoc group focused on dispelling the myths of global warming".[4] The board of directors for the Heartland Institute includes Thomas Walton,[5] , Economic Policy Analysis Director for General Motors.[6]"
Seriously man are you kidding me?
In the most respected scientific journal on the planet (Science) the study i linked abouve shows that NOT A SINGLE PEER REVIEWED ARTICLE IN THE WORLD disagreed with the consensus position that anthropomorphic climate destabilization is REAL.
So if you think all of these "bozos" who have dedicated their lives to studing climate change (with graduate degrees from the best research universities on the planet) are not qualified to make the call, who is?
You? Plumbers? Television evangilists? I know even with my training I tend to defer to experts, especially those who have demonstrated nothing but scientific integrity.
You want me to make my case? Here it is: Every educated person willing to have their work critically reviewd by the scientific community agrees with the consensus statement. I have read the papers and I agree as well. The ONLY people that disagree are in positions that are appently funded by of HEAVILY influenced by big petroleum and big industry.
If you are secretly a research scientist who has just completed a longitudinal study on greenhouse emissions and global climate trends and have new data, then by all means bring it on and I'll listen.
If you are just another conservative who didn't pay attention in science class and are angry because you don't understand what's going on, then forgive me if I don't take you particularly seriously.
Ah, so in the real world, science works through ad hominum attacks, appeals to authorities, the "everybody's doing it argument," the "no true scotsman fallacy" and namecalling? I think I understand where you are coming from now.
I don't have to prove anything to you. I'm not convinced. YOU are. Make your case. Try to do so without the falacious reasoning, if you are in fact a scientist you ought to be able to do that.
All of YOUR supposed scientists get money from governments, and benefit from the global warming nonsense. Your sources are bought off more than mine. Billions are behing this scam.
Make your own case. Also, please disclose where the money for YOUR research came from.
Thus far you have proven nothing, all you have succeeded in doing is showing that you know how to make attacks in the name of science with no science to back it up.
No, the ad-hominum attacks are because you are being obnoxious and frustrating.
Appeals to authority aren't "everyone's doing it" they are "respected scientists who do this for a living say it."
An appeal to authority is a strong way to prove a point. I hate to be insulting because I know this will be the one point of my post you will actual argue against, but that is something you learn in a first year University class.
There is nothing false about his reasoning. Hes addressed every argument you've made. Discrediting any scientist who is government funded is rather rediculous considering the government funds a LARGE amount of science and there is so much money put into whistle blowing it would make your head spin. Just walk on any campus, you'll see 100's of posters all about #'s to call and support help if you need to blow a whistle.
His research, as he has said, is not relivant to climate change. He works on similar subjects, but nothing that relates directly.
Hes stated that every peer reviewed article disagrees with you. A peer reviewed article is one that a scientist wrote, then lots of other scientists read over and had to OK.
That is where credible information comes from.
after 6 or so years, I had to change it a little...
You clearly know absolutely NOTHING about how science works in the real world.
Anyone that could show SOLID EVIDENCE that the current consensus about greenhouse gasses and global warming is fundamentally flawed would probably win a Nobel prize.
It does not help a research scientist AT ALL to jump on the bandwagon. If a legit scientist had ANY EVIDENCE that burning fossil fuels did NOT contribute to climate change, he'd probably have the most well-endowed lab on the planet. Hell, he's be like the James Bond of science. Scientists do not get an idea then make the facts fit , they look at the facts and adapt their ideas.
You keep saying I should "prove my own point" and stop "appealing to authority." What the hell are you talking about? My Research was in GC-MS stable isotope analysis os atmospheric and groundwater contaminants for the purposes of tracking point sources of pollution. While I am fully capable of doing a literature search and reading and understanding papers directly related to global warming, my own research did not address this issue directly. Are you saying it is stupid to ask experts who have devoted their professional lives to studying climate change for their opinion? Who should we ask then?? According to you apparently we should listen to think tanks funded by big industry that use unethical means to mislead the less educated masses.
In your post above you refer to the "heartland institute." They are a freaking JOKE! Just google them for god's sake:
"In April 2008, environmental journalist Richard Littlemore wrote that the Heartland Institute's list of "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares"[10] included at least 45 scientists who neither knew of their inclusion as "coauthors" of the article, nor agreed with its claims regarding global warming. Dozens of the scientists asked the Heartland Institute to remove their names from the list; for instance, Gregory Cutter of Old Dominion University wrote, "I have NO doubts... the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there." Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford wrote "Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!" [11]"
"The institute is a member organization of the Cooler Heads Coalition, "an informal and ad-hoc group focused on dispelling the myths of global warming".[4] The board of directors for the Heartland Institute includes Thomas Walton,[5] , Economic Policy Analysis Director for General Motors.[6]"
Seriously man are you kidding me?
In the most respected scientific journal on the planet (Science) the study i linked abouve shows that NOT A SINGLE PEER REVIEWED ARTICLE IN THE WORLD disagreed with the consensus position that anthropomorphic climate destabilization is REAL.
So if you think all of these "bozos" who have dedicated their lives to studing climate change (with graduate degrees from the best research universities on the planet) are not qualified to make the call, who is?
You? Plumbers? Television evangilists? I know even with my training I tend to defer to experts, especially those who have demonstrated nothing but scientific integrity.
You want me to make my case? Here it is: Every educated person willing to have their work critically reviewd by the scientific community agrees with the consensus statement. I have read the papers and I agree as well. The ONLY people that disagree are in positions that are appently funded by of HEAVILY influenced by big petroleum and big industry.
If you are secretly a research scientist who has just completed a longitudinal study on greenhouse emissions and global climate trends and have new data, then by all means bring it on and I'll listen.
If you are just another conservative who didn't pay attention in science class and are angry because you don't understand what's going on, then forgive me if I don't take you particularly seriously.
Ah, so in the real world, science works through ad hominum attacks, appeals to authorities, the "everybody's doing it argument," the "no true scotsman fallacy" and namecalling? I think I understand where you are coming from now.
I don't have to prove anything to you. I'm not convinced. YOU are. Make your case. Try to do so without the falacious reasoning, if you are in fact a scientist you ought to be able to do that.
All of YOUR supposed scientists get money from governments, and benefit from the global warming nonsense. Your sources are bought off more than mine. Billions are behing this scam.
Make your own case. Also, please disclose where the money for YOUR research came from.
Thus far you have proven nothing, all you have succeeded in doing is showing that you know how to make attacks in the name of science with no science to back it up.
No, the ad-hominum attacks are because you are being obnoxious and frustrating.
Appeals to authority aren't "everyone's doing it" they are "respected scientists who do this for a living say it."
An appeal to authority is a strong way to prove a point. I hate to be insulting because I know this will be the one point of my post you will actual argue against, but that is something you learn in a first year University class.
There is nothing false about his reasoning. Hes addressed every argument you've made. Discrediting any scientist who is government funded is rather rediculous considering the government funds a LARGE amount of science and there is so much money put into whistle blowing it would make your head spin. Just walk on any campus, you'll see 100's of posters all about #'s to call and support help if you need to blow a whistle.
His research, as he has said, is not relivant to climate change. He works on similar subjects, but nothing that relates directly.
Hes stated that every peer reviewed article disagrees with you. A peer reviewed article is one that a scientist wrote, then lots of other scientists read over and had to OK.
That is where credible information comes from.
How am I being obnoxious? It is obnoxious to not be a sheep believing what someone else says? I asked him to make a case, I am asking you to make a case, and all he has is attacks. Seems the same with you.
make your actual case.
your "respected scientists" get more research money if they take YOUR side. That makes their opinions suspect -- easily more suspect than people who get money from industries.
Every scientist who believes in man-made global warming stands to get more money of he does so. Crediible information comes from presenting it. I'd like to see some.
This globalw arming fiasco has corrupted environmental science and we can see that in the attitudes and irrational arguments that your side is making. Real scientists do not attack people. They make a case, then they gather evidence, then they make predictions to test their theories. IF their predictions turn out wrong, it's back to the drawing board.
Thus far I am seeing no evidence, and well, we know the predictions of these bought off scientists thus far have been wrong. Plus, since we no longer are experiencing global warming, they even had to change the name to "climate change." This is pure politics, no science allowed.
Sorry, I don't see even a halfway credible case being made here. Please try and make one, instead of being an apologist for emotional personal attacks that come fromfrustration, as you yourself stated.
I am still waiting to be convinced, but I wil on;y be convinced by science and reason, not politics and emotionalism.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Ah, so in the real world, science works through ad hominum attacks, appeals to authorities, the "everybody's doing it argument," the "no true scotsman fallacy" and namecalling? I think I understand where you are coming from now.
I don't have to prove anything to you. I'm not convinced. YOU are. Make your case. Try to do so without the falacious reasoning, if you are in fact a scientist you ought to be able to do that.
All of YOUR supposed scientists get money from governments, and benefit from the global warming nonsense. Your sources are bought off more than mine. Billions are behing this scam.
Make your own case. Also, please disclose where the money for YOUR research came from.
Thus far you have proven nothing, all you have succeeded in doing is showing that you know how to make attacks in the name of science with no science to back it up.
No, the ad-hominum attacks are because you are being obnoxious and frustrating.
Appeals to authority aren't "everyone's doing it" they are "respected scientists who do this for a living say it."
An appeal to authority is a strong way to prove a point. I hate to be insulting because I know this will be the one point of my post you will actual argue against, but that is something you learn in a first year University class.
There is nothing false about his reasoning. Hes addressed every argument you've made. Discrediting any scientist who is government funded is rather rediculous considering the government funds a LARGE amount of science and there is so much money put into whistle blowing it would make your head spin. Just walk on any campus, you'll see 100's of posters all about #'s to call and support help if you need to blow a whistle.
His research, as he has said, is not relivant to climate change. He works on similar subjects, but nothing that relates directly.
Hes stated that every peer reviewed article disagrees with you. A peer reviewed article is one that a scientist wrote, then lots of other scientists read over and had to OK.
That is where credible information comes from.
How am I being obnoxious? It is obnoxious to not be a sheep believing what someone else says? I asked him to make a case, I am asking you to make a case, and all he has is attacks. Seems the same with you.
make your actual case.
your "respected scientists" get more research money if they take YOUR side. That makes their opinions suspect -- easily more suspect than people who get money from industries.
Every scientist who believes in man-made global warming stands to get more money of he does so. Crediible information comes from presenting it. I'd like to see some.
This globalw arming fiasco has corrupted environmental science and we can see that in the attitudes and irrational arguments that your side is making. Real scientists do not attack people. They make a case, then they gather evidence, then they make predictions to test their theories. IF their predictions turn out wrong, it's back to the drawing board.
Thus far I am seeing no evidence, and well, we know the predictions of these bought off scientists thus far have been wrong. Plus, since we no longer are experiencing global warming, they even had to change the name to "climate change." This is pure politics, no science allowed.
Sorry, I don't see even a halfway credible case being made here. Please try and make one, instead of being an apologist for emotional personal attacks that come fromfrustration, as you yourself stated.
I am still waiting to be convinced, but I wil on;y be convinced by science and reason, not politics and emotionalism.
No, the "respected scientists" do not get more money if they take "my side." This is just a conspiracy theory cop out.
You repeatedly state that the government funding agencies are corrupt yet never provide evidence. This is starting to sound eerily like a conspiracy theory.
You've been given lots of proof. You've been given journals that contain the information you've asked for. We can lead you to water but you keep refusing to drink. If you're not going to bother to look up the arguments were making and read the material people are providing for you fine, but don't argue they don't exists just because you refuse to read them.
You've made no claims or logical arguments yet. Multiple people have given you piles of VERY credible evidence, with the reasoning for that credibility explained, yet you still say you've yet to be convinced. I don't understand what more you could want...
after 6 or so years, I had to change it a little...
People! People! Its not Global Warming now! Its Climate Change! See we all are going to survive now!!
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
Ah, so in the real world, science works through ad hominum attacks, appeals to authorities, the "everybody's doing it argument," the "no true scotsman fallacy" and namecalling? I think I understand where you are coming from now.
I don't have to prove anything to you. I'm not convinced. YOU are. Make your case. Try to do so without the falacious reasoning, if you are in fact a scientist you ought to be able to do that.
All of YOUR supposed scientists get money from governments, and benefit from the global warming nonsense. Your sources are bought off more than mine. Billions are behing this scam.
Make your own case. Also, please disclose where the money for YOUR research came from.
Thus far you have proven nothing, all you have succeeded in doing is showing that you know how to make attacks in the name of science with no science to back it up.
No, the ad-hominum attacks are because you are being obnoxious and frustrating.
Appeals to authority aren't "everyone's doing it" they are "respected scientists who do this for a living say it."
An appeal to authority is a strong way to prove a point. I hate to be insulting because I know this will be the one point of my post you will actual argue against, but that is something you learn in a first year University class.
There is nothing false about his reasoning. Hes addressed every argument you've made. Discrediting any scientist who is government funded is rather rediculous considering the government funds a LARGE amount of science and there is so much money put into whistle blowing it would make your head spin. Just walk on any campus, you'll see 100's of posters all about #'s to call and support help if you need to blow a whistle.
His research, as he has said, is not relivant to climate change. He works on similar subjects, but nothing that relates directly.
Hes stated that every peer reviewed article disagrees with you. A peer reviewed article is one that a scientist wrote, then lots of other scientists read over and had to OK.
That is where credible information comes from.
How am I being obnoxious? It is obnoxious to not be a sheep believing what someone else says? I asked him to make a case, I am asking you to make a case, and all he has is attacks. Seems the same with you.
make your actual case.
your "respected scientists" get more research money if they take YOUR side. That makes their opinions suspect -- easily more suspect than people who get money from industries.
Every scientist who believes in man-made global warming stands to get more money of he does so. Crediible information comes from presenting it. I'd like to see some.
This globalw arming fiasco has corrupted environmental science and we can see that in the attitudes and irrational arguments that your side is making. Real scientists do not attack people. They make a case, then they gather evidence, then they make predictions to test their theories. IF their predictions turn out wrong, it's back to the drawing board.
Thus far I am seeing no evidence, and well, we know the predictions of these bought off scientists thus far have been wrong. Plus, since we no longer are experiencing global warming, they even had to change the name to "climate change." This is pure politics, no science allowed.
Sorry, I don't see even a halfway credible case being made here. Please try and make one, instead of being an apologist for emotional personal attacks that come fromfrustration, as you yourself stated.
I am still waiting to be convinced, but I wil on;y be convinced by science and reason, not politics and emotionalism.
No, the "respected scientists" do not get more money if they take "my side." This is just a conspiracy theory cop out.
You repeatedly state that the government funding agencies are corrupt yet never provide evidence. This is starting to sound eerily like a conspiracy theory.
You've been given lots of proof. You've been given journals that contain the information you've asked for. We can lead you to water but you keep refusing to drink. If you're not going to bother to look up the arguments were making and read the material people are providing for you fine, but don't argue they don't exists just because you refuse to read them.
You've made no claims or logical arguments yet. Multiple people have given you piles of VERY credible evidence, with the reasoning for that credibility explained, yet you still say you've yet to be convinced. I don't understand what more you could want...
Ah, now we move on t the next fallacy, the one known as appeal to ridicule.
Why is a conspiracy theory to distrust government funding of science, but it is reasonable to distrust funding from oil companies?
You mean oil companies conspire to spread falsehoods, but governments do not? Governments are moral and can not corrupt science based upon policy desires?
I'm not here to make an argument. I want to be convinced. Show me some uncorrupted evidence, and then show me a theory that makes accurate predictions based upon that evidence.
Thus far I am seeing nothing but emotionalism and other fallacies true believers in science would never make.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Yup. LOL.
fishermage.blogspot.com
True, but debates like this are important because they speak to peoples' willingness to take responsibility for fixing big problems.
Yes, it is probably too late to keep the world from becoming a living hell. I still feel like it is worthwhile to try to do the right thing.
It's funny that some of the posters here are talking about acting like "sheep"... and yet they are the ones insisting that everything is fine, that only the sensationalists are worried.
Is it worth it to try to get through to people? Maybe. I think so.
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
True, but debates like this are important because they speak to peoples' willingness to take responsibility for fixing big problems.
Yes, it is probably too late to keep the world from becoming a living hell. I still feel like it is worthwhile to try to do the right thing.
It's funny that some of the posters here are talking about acting like "sheep"... and yet they are the ones insisting that everything is fine, that only the sensationalists are worried.
Is it worth it to try to get through to people? Maybe. I think so.
So make your case without resorting to fallacies. Be the scientist you claim to be. I want to believe.
fishermage.blogspot.com
You never replied to this post.
Also, I have to ask... what would you consider credible proof? I know the scientists that I've worked with are beholden to no one. I also believe that if there were real evidence that global warming is bunk that there is NO WAY the scientific community would keep that secret. You don't seem to understand that most scientists are willing to sacrifice their LIVES for the TRUTH. And yet there is not ONE SINGLE CREDIBLE STUDY that has ever contradicted the current consnsus.
If you are waiting for me to go out and do my own field work I'll have to let you down. Just curious, what research experience do you have?
Edit: left some words out
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
I thought that said "Be the sorcerer you claim to be" for a while. Very well, then. Watch and be amazed, as I magically pull facts from my ass.
www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ Atmospheric CO2 levels in Mauna Loa. Granted it's a volcano, but I guess they take air samples there for a reason.
seekerblog.com/archives/20090317/increasing-atmospheric-co2-levels-linked-to-ocean-acidification/ As any chemistry teacher will tell you, increase the partial pressure of CO2 over water, you get increased CO2 solubility. And when CO2 is in solution with water, it forms carbolic acid. Read the article to see why our major shellfish sources are DISSOLVING BEFORE OUR EYES. Also the algea thing i mentioned earlier. And do you honestly think that whole ceolocanth thing a few years back was normal? Things we didn't even know existed are dieing because of this.
how does anything you presented prove that global warming is man-made and that it is a serious problem that we have to do something about?
I never contested your belief in the acidification of water.
I myself said that the whole global warming nonsense is taking away time and money from the real environmental problems we should be dealing with. Your issue might be one of them.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Funny thing about carbon dioxide. It's a greenhouse gas AND dissolves in water, dropping pH.
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
You never replied to this post.
Also, I have to ask... what would you consider credible proof? I know the scientists that I've worked with are beholden to no one. I also believe that if there were real evidence that global warming is bunk that there is NO WAY the scientific community would keep that secret. You don't seem to understand that most scientists are willing to sacrifice their LIVES for the TRUTH. And yet there is not ONE SINGLE CREDIBLE STUDY that has ever contradicted the current consnsus.
If you are waiting for me to go out and do my own field work I'll have to let you down. Just curious, what research experience do you have?
Edit: left some words out
Again, tell me what proof would satisfy you and I'll do my best to provide it. Really curious what you have to say to the rest of this post.
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
You never replied to this post.
Also, I have to ask... what would you consider credible proof? I know the scientists that I've worked with are beholden to no one. I also believe that if there were real evidence that global warming is bunk that there is NO WAY the scientific community would keep that secret. You don't seem to understand that most scientists are willing to sacrifice their LIVES for the TRUTH. And yet there is not ONE SINGLE CREDIBLE STUDY that has ever contradicted the current consnsus.
If you are waiting for me to go out and do my own field work I'll have to let you down. Just curious, what research experience do you have?
Edit: left some words out
Again, tell me what proof would satisfy you and I'll do my best to provide it. Really curious what you have to say to the rest of this post.
is this stuff being addressed to me? You don't say you are saying it to me. Your behavior here seems to show that it is...but it is unclear.
I know some of my sources are backed by petroleum, and I don't have a problem with that. I trust big oil way more than I trust big government, which is funding YOUR side.
Scientists are against government intervention? where? when? which ones? name names please.
Please, show me one libertarian scientist who agrees with you about this. Show me one conservative. Show me one person who isn't a big government dude who agrees with you.
What proof would satisfy me? Easy.
First, I want evidence that shows that man-made carbon caused global warming (not merely a "correlation but true causation), then I want to see that it causes global warming to be bad enough so we need to do something about it, then I want to see how your theories have predictive value.
Then you need to explain other warming trends that occurred before industrialization, and why this time it is unique and we must do something about it.
That would be a start.
Attempting to discredit the opposition through a discussion of funding is a moot point, which was my point of throwing the funding nonsense back at you. It is ad hominum attack. Please show me YOUR evidence. I am the one being the skeptic -- make the case.
Also I never said scientists are getting rich -- I said they get more funding if they are on one side of this than the other. Scientists need to get money to do research -- I see no superiority of government dollars than to industry dollars. Both are equally corrupting.
Again that was in answer to your ad hominum attack on the scientists who get money from oil companies.
Just make a case without fallacies and we can get started.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I'm saying it doesn't matter whether it's real or not. There are so many variables including volcanic activity, airplanes changing the weather currents to the point where we don't actually know what they are naturally anymore, sunspots, cow farts, aliens, cats and dogs living together...but if you solve the acification of the oceans (which definitely 100% does exist), solve global warming (which may or may not exist) at the same time since they're both in theory caused by the same thing.
Also:
That's certainly possible, but it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. If you want to start a thread about ocean acidification, cool beans.
fishermage.blogspot.com
When calling people stupid it is best not to misspell words.
Fishermage, fine. I'll dig up the best papers in the field if I have time tomorrow. Will be a good refresher on the state of the science. also get you some info on scientists against govt intervention. Don't have time for a full lit search tonight.
One thing I'm curious about.. if you say the government is influencing reasearch through funding, shouldn't most of the climate reasearch done in the US for the past 8 years sort of support the conservative position in this issue?
I'm out for the night.
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
There is a very simple experiment you can do at home for, say $300. Build 2 ,1' Plexi-glass cubes, have a valve come out of each. Rent a Oxygen tank and a CO2 tank (chem shops do this a decent prices). Place a sensor end thermometer in each cube, seal cube (needs to be air tight). Grab 2 equal wattage work lamps (same brand bulbs and all). Hook both tanks to the corresponding boxes. Fill each box to say 15 psi, turn lamp on, close valves. Have each lamp on for a set time (say 30 min), turn lamps off. Watch and record how fast each box cools. Fairly easy, no?
Edit: If you feel nervous of using O2, you can just use the CO2, and a standard air compresser, but results will not be as dramatic.
Major or Current Characters
AC - The Brute lvl 85 macer -HG (retired)
SWG - Lihone Su'alkn Master Ranger/ MCH - Flurry (Retired)
EVE - Sulone - Cruiser Lover (Retired)
LOTRO - Sandric lvl 50 Burg (and others)- Brandywine (Retired)
GW2 - Sandric lvl 80 Thief - Dragonbrand (Retired)
NeverWinter - Sandric lvl 60 Rogue - Dragonshard (Retired)
Archage - Sandric lvl 50 everything - Naima (Active)
Others (Lots) (Retired)
When calling people stupid it is best not to misspell words.
Fishermage, fine. I'll dig up the best papers in the field if I have time tomorrow. Will be a good refresher on the state of the science. also get you some info on scientists against govt intervention. Don't have time for a full lit search tonight.
One thing I'm curious about.. if you say the government is influencing reasearch through funding, shouldn't most of the climate reasearch done in the US for the past 8 years sort of support the conservative position in this issue?
I'm out for the night.
No, because regardless of the administration in power, government promotes itself. That is how government funding of the sciences has corrupted the whole business of science.
At any rate I look forward to real information.
EDIT: you conveniently forget however, that you were the one who started this nonsense about the corruption of the science through funding, by dicsounting what people said because they took monet from big oil. If big oil corrupts science, big government can corrupt science even more.
fishermage.blogspot.com
No, the "respected scientists" do not get more money if they take "my side." This is just a conspiracy theory cop out.
You repeatedly state that the government funding agencies are corrupt yet never provide evidence. This is starting to sound eerily like a conspiracy theory.
You've been given lots of proof. You've been given journals that contain the information you've asked for. We can lead you to water but you keep refusing to drink. If you're not going to bother to look up the arguments were making and read the material people are providing for you fine, but don't argue they don't exists just because you refuse to read them.
You've made no claims or logical arguments yet. Multiple people have given you piles of VERY credible evidence, with the reasoning for that credibility explained, yet you still say you've yet to be convinced. I don't understand what more you could want...
Ah, now we move on t the next fallacy, the one known as appeal to ridicule.
Why is a conspiracy theory to distrust government funding of science, but it is reasonable to distrust funding from oil companies?
You mean oil companies conspire to spread falsehoods, but governments do not? Governments are moral and can not corrupt science based upon policy desires?
I'm not here to make an argument. I want to be convinced. Show me some uncorrupted evidence, and then show me a theory that makes accurate predictions based upon that evidence.
Thus far I am seeing nothing but emotionalism and other fallacies true believers in science would never make.
I did not create a straw man out of your arguement. Distrusting any research that is funded by an industry or government is silly.
Scientists are notoriously relentless in their persuit of being right. Im simply calling it a conspiracy theory because I think its rediculous; you've been showing me absoluty no respect so I feel no obligation to be nice, respectful, or perfectly percise. If you feel like nit-picking my sentence structure and choice of words, go for it, but it contributes nothing to this thread.
Your very simply dismissing ideas, evidence and studies purely on the basis that their money came from people with an interest.
I don't know where your finding emotional arguments. Nor has anybody arguing with you been using any fallacies in their arguments. People may have attacked you on the side, but their argument never hinged on the statement that your being rediculous.
Neither oil companies nor governments have a sizeable influence on the people they fund. As I have said earlier, as a researcher you have "whistle blowing" mentioned constatly. Not to mention, as said earlier, if somebody was to find something actually solid and conclusive evidence for one side of the argument, it would get out. Its a HUGE thing... Their name would be in the histroy books.
If you want to nit-pick fallacies, your building straw man out of peoples arguments by ignoring most of the post and simply summing it up as an insult and a fallacy. Your throwing a red herring ad hominem attack when you claim were being emotional and that "real believers in science" would never say what we say.
Not to mention your poisoning the well when we discuss scientific papers by claiming the government funding corrupts the research. I'm hoping Enkindu finds some interesting papers, I've been interested for a while in digging through papers but being a Computer Science major and knowing mostly Mathmaticians and Biochemists/Biologists I really have nobody whos really up to date in the field.
But Im out for the night, I think its pointless untill Enkidu posts the papers, then we can see whats left after that.
after 6 or so years, I had to change it a little...
No, the "respected scientists" do not get more money if they take "my side." This is just a conspiracy theory cop out.
You repeatedly state that the government funding agencies are corrupt yet never provide evidence. This is starting to sound eerily like a conspiracy theory.
You've been given lots of proof. You've been given journals that contain the information you've asked for. We can lead you to water but you keep refusing to drink. If you're not going to bother to look up the arguments were making and read the material people are providing for you fine, but don't argue they don't exists just because you refuse to read them.
You've made no claims or logical arguments yet. Multiple people have given you piles of VERY credible evidence, with the reasoning for that credibility explained, yet you still say you've yet to be convinced. I don't understand what more you could want...
Ah, now we move on t the next fallacy, the one known as appeal to ridicule.
Why is a conspiracy theory to distrust government funding of science, but it is reasonable to distrust funding from oil companies?
You mean oil companies conspire to spread falsehoods, but governments do not? Governments are moral and can not corrupt science based upon policy desires?
I'm not here to make an argument. I want to be convinced. Show me some uncorrupted evidence, and then show me a theory that makes accurate predictions based upon that evidence.
Thus far I am seeing nothing but emotionalism and other fallacies true believers in science would never make.
I did not create a straw man out of your arguement. Distrusting any research that is funded by an industry or government is silly.
Scientists are notoriously relentless in their persuit of being right. Im simply calling it a conspiracy theory because I think its rediculous; you've been showing me absoluty no respect so I feel no obligation to be nice, respectful, or perfectly percise. If you feel like nit-picking my sentence structure and choice of words, go for it, but it contributes nothing to this thread.
Your very simply dismissing ideas, evidence and studies purely on the basis that their money came from people with an interest.
I don't know where your finding emotional arguments. Nor has anybody arguing with you been using any fallacies in their arguments. People may have attacked you on the side, but their argument never hinged on the statement that your being rediculous.
Neither oil companies nor governments have a sizeable influence on the people they fund. As I have said earlier, as a researcher you have "whistle blowing" mentioned constatly. Not to mention, as said earlier, if somebody was to find something actually solid and conclusive evidence for one side of the argument, it would get out. Its a HUGE thing... Their name would be in the histroy books.
If you want to nit-pick fallacies, your building straw man out of peoples arguments by ignoring most of the post and simply summing it up as an insult and a fallacy. Your throwing a red herring ad hominem attack when you claim were being emotional and that "real believers in science" would never say what we say.
Not to mention your poisoning the well when we discuss scientific papers by claiming the government funding corrupts the research. I'm hoping Enkindu finds some interesting papers, I've been interested for a while in digging through papers but being a Computer Science major and knowing mostly Mathmaticians and Biochemists/Biologists I really have nobody whos really up to date in the field.
But Im out for the night, I think its pointless untill Enkidu posts the papers, then we can see whats left after that.
I am only claiming that government corrupts research IN RESPONSE to Endiku implying that industry funding corrupts research. Why didn't you go after HIM when he did the first poisoning of the well, but instead went after my response to HIM doing it. I specifically said why I brought up government funding being as corrupting as business, not more.
I have looked at both sides myself, and find that I am on the side that is skeptical of man-made global warming, skeptical that is is a problem, and skeptical that we should use government force to "do something" about it."
I will state it clearly for you: I do not know if the amount of Carbon Dioxide we release is a significant factor in the climate. I do not see enough evidence to prove that. I see the "evidence" on both sides tend to cancel each other out. The day someone convinces me with real evidence that I can see for myself is the day I change my mind -- same as every major change in my life. Evidence will convince me.
Also, the minute they can actually come up with a theory that has real predictive value, I will change.
Now, on to the rest of your charges of my supposed use of fallacies. I am not creating a straw man, I am not positing anything -- I am looking to be convinced by evidence which I have not seen. Instead of making a charge, please show where I did what you are saying.
I am claiming people are using emotionalism when they use an appeal to fear. That's not a red herring, it's stating what they are doing. It is not a substitution for the argument, it is in addition to the argument. real believers in science do not attack people. I have not attacked anyone, but Endiku came on saying "I am a real scientist!" and then started attacking people. I merely called him on that. Sabian said, "it is okay to lie about this," so I called him on that. None of that is part of my argument -- those were observations.
I did not discount the evidence people gave with attacks. I discounted evidence with evidence. In response, Endiku said "those guys are liars because they get money from big oil."
That BEGAN the discussion of funding, but you, for some reason, are ignoring that.
The moment someone presents evidence and deals with all criticism without launching the attack, "those guys are funded by big oil," I'll be very interested in what they have to say.
I'm still waiting. I can't wait to see what he's got.
fishermage.blogspot.com