The Most Extra New Super Global Warming Thread

[GlobalWarmin]

Squid, seriously, you posted an editorial as a reference? And then Ghost posts something from junkscience.com? Wow. You guys are still at square 1.

Furthermore, that article isn't an opinion from the Guardian. It was a major news story last year, I just happened to find it in the Guardian first.

edit: for the curious but lazy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_st...Editorial_page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkscience.com

So, you've managed to once again prove that your opinions are directly coming from notorious right-wing sources. Bravo.

[USN_Squid]

Originally Posted by GlobalWarmin

Squid, seriously, you posted an editorial as a reference? And then Ghost posts something from junkscience.com? Wow. You guys are still at square 1.

Furthermore, that article isn't an opinion from the Guardian. It was a major news story last year, I just happened to find it in the Guardian first.

edit: for the curious but lazy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_st...Editorial_page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkscience.com

So, you've managed to once again prove that your opinions are directly coming from notorious right-wing sources. Bravo.

the irony is ruining my socks....

edit:
The wiki entry for AEI gives a more rational representation of this "major news story":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...rise_Institute

[ThePromQueen]

Why are we arguing anyway? None of this is going to matter when the zombie virus hits...

[Eroak]

All I can say is, "wow..."

[GlobalWarmin]

Originally Posted by USN_Squid

the irony is ruining my socks....

edit:
The wiki entry for AEI gives a more rational representation of this "major news story":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...rise_Institute

Holy cow.

First, the AEI confirms that Exxon offered the money. Their statement is:

The Guardian article was disputed both by AEI[21] and in an editorial in the Wall Street Journal.[22] The rebuttals claimed factual errors and distortions, noting the ExxonMobil funding was spread out over a ten-year period and totaled less than 1% of AEI's budget. The Wall Street Journal editorial stated "AEI doesn't lobby, didn't offer money to scientists to question global warming, and the money it did pay for climate research didn't come from Exxon."

So, the WSJ editorial is from this organization. I wondered why I didn't see an author's name. A right wing organization wrote an article for a right wing editorial page to attack global warming. Big surprise.

And, I can hardly type this without laughing, but, the "scholars and fellows" of the AEI are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...rs_and_fellows

And their funding comes from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...titute#Funding

More about the right wing's attack on global warming:
http://www.heatisonline.org/contents...45&Method=Full

[USN_Squid]

Originally Posted by GlobalWarmin

So, the WSJ editorial is from this organization. I wondered why I didn't see an author's name. A right wing organization wrote an article for a right wing editorial page to attack global warming. Big surprise.

What? How is the WSJ "from this organization"?

Originally Posted by angry partisan

More about the right wing's attack on global warming:
http://www.heatisonline.org/contents...45&Method=Full

Now here you are quoting some source unfamiliar to most, and yet my bet would be no one is going to flame you for it. I'm not saying what is on the site isn't true, it may be, but you haven't given others the same latitude I'm afraid.

edit: Ross Gelbspan (that site's purveyor) is a well known left wing activist, clearly he can't be trusted. Is that the conversational tone you want GlobalWarmin?

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by GlobalWarmin

Took less than one minute to find:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen....climatechange

Oooh, smack!

Kudos to you GlobalWarmin for presenting external sources to your position.

Originally Posted by USN_Squid

This doesn't sound terribly nefarious to me...

No USN_Squid? Do you really wish to adopt science that funded only if a specific conclusion is reached?

bkelly

[USN_Squid]

Originally Posted by bkelly

Oooh, smack!

Kudos to you GlobalWarmin for presenting external sources to your position.



No USN_Squid? Do you really wish to adopt science that funded only if a specific conclusion is reached?

bkelly

Back up a couple posts homey you need to catch up. GW is spinning this one big time.

Special interests groups from all political, social, and yes even scientific positions pay for research. They ALL do it. If you are inclined to believe that NASA and the Pew charitable trusts are honest and well purposed but AEI isn't, well that's your view pioint and you're welcome to it. But they all pay experts in their fields to provide them with information.


From the wiki sourced editorial:
"Here are the facts as we've been able to collect them. AEI doesn't lobby, didn't offer money to scientists to question global warming, and the money it did pay for climate research didn't come from Exxon.

What AEI did was send a letter to several leading climate scientists asking them to participate in a symposium that would present a "range of policy prescriptions that should be considered for climate change of uncertain dimension." Some of the scholars asked to participate, including Steve Schroeder of Texas A& M, are climatologists who believe that global warming is a major problem.

AEI President Chris DeMuth says, "What the Guardian essentially characterizes as a bribe is the conventional practice of AEI -- and Brookings, Harvard and the University of Manchester -- to pay individuals" for commissioned work. He says that Exxon has contributed less than 1% of AEI's budget over the last decade."

[GhostintheShell]

Yeah, sorry about getting you confused with "GlobalWarmin", whatever-your-name is the COD admin that sent me such a nice PM. To ask me if "I am high" in a private message is not exactly conduct becoming of an Admin. It was an honest mistake based on your similar Avatar's.

I knew GlobalWarmin would jump on the junkscience link without reading any of the information in it.
I'm guessing he spends more time doing wikipedia searches to find out who is behind every website than you do actually reading the info contained on the pages.

If the biggest complaint someone has with a website is that it is operated by someone with bias to this organization or that one, and they don't present any arguments against the info on that website...well I think that speaks for itself.

On the oil funded science issue....don't you think that the GW pop culture is indirectly funding the other 99% of science projects that support GW? Let's face it GW is the "rock star" of the science world, for now. The sad truth is that the politician's support popular science, they need issues to support that people want to hear about.

I expect like many other pop phenomenon this will eventually turn around, maybe 2008 will be the year GW "burns out". I'm hearing less and less support for GW, at least in my area of the scientific community people are starting to tell that things are just not adding up. I suspect that is generally occurring in other areas as well.

[Gambit7]

GW is by no means burning out. Maybe with "pop culture," but definitely not behind the scenes where money is spent and deals are cut. (and science is done)

What needs to happen is a Critical Mass of R&D that forces the public to see the Light (literally, in the case of solar power). We're getting increasingly closer to that critical mass. And soon instead of GW being a "pop culture" fad, it'll be an everyday reality that we're dealing with in real-time. Regardless of if it's even science fact (which it is) or not.

[GlobalWarmin]

Seriously, I am never going to post on this thread again. There is nothing even remotely non-offensive left to say to any of you neo-con bigots.

edit: I shouldn't call you all morons, because your problem is bigger than just not being very smart.

[leejo]

Originally Posted by GlobalWarmin

Seriously, I am never going to post on this thread again. There is nothing even remotely non-offensive left to say to any of you neo-con morons.

I was going to ask for a list of acceptable sources so we can know which institutions are full of reputable, hard-working, and unbiased scientists and reporters and which have been infiltrated by big oil neo-con morons, but I kinda like your solution better.

[USN_Squid]

Originally Posted by GlobalWarmin

Seriously, I am never going to post on this thread again. There is nothing even remotely non-offensive left to say to any of you neo-con bigots.

edit: I shouldn't call you all morons, because your problem is bigger than just not being very smart.

Nothing non-offensive left to say and yet you find a way....good riddance. Personally I think your behavior in this thread is grounds for removing your posting rights but then again I'm not an admin.

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by USN_Squid

From the wiki sourced editorial:

Just to reiterate GlobalWarmin's point because I think you missed it. According to your Wikipedia article, the editorial in defense of the AEI was written by the AEI. Not exactly a neutral assessment.

...AEI doesn't lobby...

Um, your Wikipedia article states that the AEI was "one of the leading architects of the second Bush administration's public policy." If that's not lobbying, I don't know what is.

...didn't offer money to scientists to question global warming...

Well, no. It offered money to scientists to question the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report.

...and the money it did pay for climate research didn't come from Exxon.

At least one percent-ish did since "Exxon has contributed less than 1% of AEI's budget over the last decade".

Special interests groups from all political, social, and yes even scientific positions pay for research. They ALL do it.

Pay for research, yes. Pay for conclusions, no.

USN_Squid, have you read the letter they sent to scientists? I think it's quite obvious that they were looking for FUD to use against the IPCC's FAR. Here's a quote:

As with any alrge-scale "consensus" process, the IPCC is susceptible to self-selection bias in its personnel, resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent, and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work for the complete Working Group reports.

Again I have to ask USN_Squid, is this the kind of science you wish to adopt?

bkelly

[GhostintheShell]

Originally Posted by bkelly

As with any alrge-scale "consensus" process, the IPCC is susceptible to self-selection bias in its personnel, resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent, and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work for the complete Working Group reports.
bkelly

I think they make some really valid statements about the IPCC there.
Thanks for the quote.