Koch funded climate skeptics confirm global warming

[wsdavies]

It's occupy spyderco.com...hope someone brought condoms last thing we want is these folks reproducing.

[defenestrate]

[quote="EarthDog"]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Consensus decision-making is a group decision making process that seeks the consent, not necessarily the agreement, of participants and the resolution of objections. Consensus is defined by Merriam-Webster as, first, general agreement, and second, group solidarity of belief or sentiment. It has its origin in a Latin word meaning literally feel together.[1] It is used to describe both the decision and the process of reaching a decision. Consensus decision-making is thus concerned with the process of reaching a consensus decision, and the social and political effects of using this process.

Consensus should not be confused with unanimity[2] or solidarity.

[The Deacon]

What if they're just a bunch of buzz words, some no more achievable than perpetual motion, and others mutually exclusive. What if they ignore the fact that, within the next ten years, India and China will double and possibly triple the number of automobile owners worldwide. What if they ignore the reality that healthier children will consume more resources and live to create yet more consumers.

I am willing to work towards them as I believe that it is my responsibility to the future generations to do so. Apathy is a dangerous thing.

I don't consider myself apathetic.

Cynical, definitely. But that's what comes from 55 years of observing how those who want "change" of any kind almost inevitably want the infrastructure for that change located anywhere but in their own back yards. It also seems that whatever group A thinks will save the earth often provokes a negative response from group B who feel preserving a rare sub-species of butterfly, snail, small fish, or an obscure flowering plant is more important.

Skeptical too. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I've seen more than a few cases where new technologies have had serious negative consequences that were either totally unexpected or dismissed as too unlikely to be worth worrying about. I'd no more blindly accept the claims of their supporters than I would the claims of someone on TV hawking knives which never need sharpening.

Insensitive and selfish, given that they are the only alternatives to altruism and selflessness, then I'm those as well. I'm perfectly willing to choose the "environmentally conscious" option when it has some tangible benefit for me, personally. That's why, among other things, all the bulbs in my home are CFLs. However, I will only buy into the idea of doing things solely of benefit only to future generations the day that plans to curb irresponsible reproductive behavior are promoted as vigorously as those to curb other environmental hazards and not one day sooner. Because, no matter how much or how little I do to damage the earth in my lifetime, that damage stops the day I die.

For me, the bottom line is that the earrh is a closed system which can only support so many people. Regardless of whether human activity is the primary, or even a significant, factor in global warming, as a species we are breeding our way to worldwide famine.

[araneae]

Woke up today . . . Blanket of snow outside my window.

(Keep in mind, I don't live in Alaska.)

How can anyone with a working brain honestly believe in this Global Warming nonsense?

Even the ones pushing the agenda know they can't fool people most of the time anymore. That's why they now refer to it as "Climate Change." Under any name, it's still the same B.S.

You should not confuse singular weather events with climate. They are two distinct phenomena.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Consensus decision-making is a group decision making process that seeks the consent, not necessarily the agreement, of participants and the resolution of objections. Consensus is defined by Merriam-Webster as, first, general agreement, and second, group solidarity of belief or sentiment. It has its origin in a Latin word meaning literally feel together.[1] It is used to describe both the decision and the process of reaching a decision. Consensus decision-making is thus concerned with the process of reaching a consensus decision, and the social and political effects of using this process.

Consensus should not be confused with unanimity[2] or solidarity.

I think he is using it properly. Unanimity is a ridiculous expectation. If there was no dissent, I would be surprised. There is always going to be someone to disagree with almost any statement, its human nature. But that does not mean that the vast majority of scientists should be ignored.

[Sequimite]

I appreciate the responses. For those whose education did not leave them with an understanding and appreciation of science I don't see how I can fill that gap.

Aside from the rigorous educational standards, the peer review process and the admirable dedication of those who chase knowledge instead of dollars the reason I trust science in general is a simple one. The most famous, prestigious and revered scientists are those that overturned the apple cart. If not most, at least the best scientists dream and scheme to prove the consensus scientific view wrong.

The fact is that science changes, BUT the changes are almost always smaller and smaller because the work that went before was well done. The Ptolemaic system of the earth as the center of the universe worked better than the heliocentric system for centuries until Tyco Brahe made more precise measurements which Kepler rendered into mathematical laws which were further refined by Newton and Einstein among others. Notice too that the biggest change occurred with the beginning of the modern scientific method and the changes since Kepler have been refinements. Within science, a refinement like Einstein's which brought accuracy from (guessing) 99.9998% to 99.9999% is a revolution. And the scientific method itself has been improved over the centuries.

Ptolemy can still predict all the motions, eclipses, etc. Kepler and Newton can still take us to the moon. Heck, Euclidean geometry is still incredibly useful after more than two millennia despite the fact that many other geometries since model the world much better.

Good old competition drives the the peer review process ensuring a high degree of accuracy and competition drives most scientists to try to disprove accepted scientific facts. The same basic human psychology that makes the chaotic capitalist free enterprise system the most efficient producer of wealth makes the scientific process the most efficient producer of knowledge.

[defenestrate]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ

http://www.prisonplanet.com/oil-compani ... ptics.html

..

[Sequimite]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ

http://www.prisonplanet.com/oil-compani ... ptics.html

..

Very entertaining. The Oil Companies are behind the effort to stop global warming! From the same people that claim the US was responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing and 9/11 and think that the NRA is part of the global conspiracy to take away our guns.

Once you plunge deeply enough into conspiracy theories it becomes apparent that black is white - it's a false flag operation!!!

[Monocrom]

You should not confuse singular weather events with climate. They are two distinct phenomena.

Fair enough.

Let me compare it to one of the coldest Winter's we've had in NYC history. One with record snowfall. That was, oh . . . Last Year.

How silly of me to believe my lying eyes. :rolleyes:

It's very simple:
When a group or a Movement realizes that reality (and Mother Nature) simply refuse to cooperate with their view of the world, and thus they decide to change the name of their cause from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change;" that speaks volumes about their collective mentality.

Instead of, "Perhaps we should re-examine or re-evaluate our view of the world," no; their mentality is "Let's change the name of our cause so that reality seems to better apply to our beliefs."

Like I said, volumes . . .

[araneae]

Fair enough.

Let me compare it to one of the coldest Winter's we've had in NYC history. One with record snowfall. That was, oh . . . Last Year.

How silly of me to believe my lying eyes. :rolleyes:

I apologize for sounding rude, but you don't have a grasp of what climate patterns are versus weather conditions. A few months is a relative drop in the bucket.

From wikipedia:
Climate encompasses the statistics of temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, rainfall, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological elemental measurements in a given region over long periods. Climate can be contrasted to weather, which is the present condition of these elements and their variations over shorter periods.

[angusW]

Very entertaining. The Oil Companies are behind the effort to stop global warming! From the same people that claim the US was responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing and 9/11 and think that the NRA is part of the global conspiracy to take away our guns.

Once you plunge deeply enough into conspiracy theories it becomes apparent that black is white - it's a false flag operation!!!

So if I pretend that my science is correct, twist the facts from someone with a different position and act like an arrogant *** like you then that will make me right as well?

[Monocrom]

I apologize for sounding rude, but you don't have a grasp of what climate patterns are versus weather conditions. A few months is a relative drop in the bucket.

From wikipedia:
Climate encompasses the statistics of temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, rainfall, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological elemental measurements in a given region over long periods. Climate can be contrasted to weather, which is the present condition of these elements and their variations over shorter periods.

Well, that's certainly a tried & true tactic. Can't come up with an intelligent rebuttal to a point that was made, go after the guy making the point and try to make it look as though he has no clue what he's talking about.

That tactic generally works, but not if the other guy knows about it and calls you out on it. Nice try though.

By the way . . . There's a HUGE reason why no college recognizes Wikipedia as a reliable referrence source. Use it on a college paper, enjoy your automatic "F."

Like I said, nice try.

[araneae]

Well, that's certainly a tried & true tactic. Can't come up with an intelligent rebuttal to a point that was made, go after the guy making the point and try to make it look as though he has no clue what he's talking about.

That tactic generally works, but not if the other guy knows about it and calls you out on it. Nice try though.

By the way . . . There's a HUGE reason why no college recognizes Wikipedia as a reliable referrence source. Use it on a college paper, enjoy your automatic "F."

Like I said, nice try.

My rebuttal did not "go after" you, just the commonly held misconception of what climate is. If you think that is an unintelligent rebuttal, I'm sorry. Many people don't know how it differs from weather. You are welcome to consult any accredited ecology/earth science or text book with a definition of climate and weather and then tell me how they define the two. The wikipedia definitions are pretty accurate.

[Sequimite]

So if I pretend that my science is correct, twist the facts from someone with a different position and act like an arrogant *** like you then that will make me right as well?

Unsupported assertions and name calling.

Over 90% of climatologist agree that the Earth is warming and five major efforts to collect and evaluate the data, including the original citation, are in almost lockstep agreement on the upward progress of temperatures. That is science, not my mere opinion. As skeptical as Paul is he thought everyone understand at least this much.

Tell what facts I twisted.

[Sequimite]

Fair enough.

Let me compare it to one of the coldest Winter's we've had in NYC history. One with record snowfall. That was, oh . . . Last Year.

How silly of me to believe my lying eyes. :rolleyes:
.

Aside from the fact that a few years weather tells you nothing about climate you are missing another fundamental point.

We're talking here about global averages. Global warming will cause climate changes in particular locations to trend higher or lower in temperature. One location or a dozen locations are almost irrelevant in figuring the global average. The difficulty has been in taking all the data from individual locations and constructing an accurate global average. The skeptics cited in the original post doubted that this was being done accurately and now their own study agrees with the other major studies.

[defenestrate]

Around 3 Solar Cycles ago, many of the same people were telling us that global cooling was going to destroy the Earth. One thing is for sure, scientists realize that the world's climate changes. As to whether this rather mild warming period in any way represents the actions of humans, there is no consensus.

[jabba359]

Some interesting reading on warm interglacial and cold glacial conditions over the last 130,000 years: http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc130k.html

Of note is that the earth has been as warm, or warmer, then it currently is. And that was without the modern day man-made global warming phenomenon. As an aside, the cold eras were actually the most arid times with huge expanses of desert while the warmer periods (where the earth was both warmer and moister than current conditions) had both the Sahara and Arabian deserts covered with vegetation.

Also of particular interest is the last ice age recovery went through a mini-ice age, called the Younger Dryas, that lasted 1,300 years. The thing about this period is that when it ended, the temperatures went from ice age cold to temperatures similar to today in a span of only a few decades, with half of that warming taking place over about 15 years. Now that makes our current rate of warming seem like nothing at all!

Don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing that man isn't contributing to the warming cycle. What I AM trying to point out, however, is that nature has a much more powerful influence on the temperatures and that what man contributes to this warming is minimal. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to develop better technology for cleaner power, take care of the resources we do have, or keep the atmosphere from becoming full of junk. I'm all for being responsible custodians of our planet, but don't ruin our economy and living standards by trying to stop warming completely, because we can't.

When it comes to global warming fear mongering, you have to face the scientific facts: we are currently in an interglacial period that is still cooler than the most recent previous interglacial periods, so expect it to keep getting warmer, no matter what we do. We need to be responsible with our ecosystem, but we can't completely control it.

P.S. Scientists have to pay bills, feed the kids, and put clothing on their family's backs too. If man made global warming means you get funding for your project, you're not going to be too eager to support or explore the other possibilities, cause there's no money in that. When it means getting your funding cut (meaning you lose your job) by disagreeing, altruism all to often gets tossed out the window, even in the scientific communities. Just look back at the history of scientists who were black listed and ostracized for voicing their non-popular theories that ended up being right.

[Daniel]

P.S. Scientists have to pay bills, feed the kids, and put clothing on their family's backs too. If man made global warming means you get funding for your project, you're not going to be too eager to support or explore the other possibilities, cause there's no money in that. When it means getting your funding cut (meaning you lose your job) by disagreeing, altruism all to often gets tossed out the window, even in the scientific communities. Just look back at the history of scientists who were black listed and ostracized for voicing their non-popular theories that ended up being right.

Bing, bing, bing, bing!!! We have a winner! This is it in a nutshell!

[araneae]

Around 3 Solar Cycles ago, many of the same people were telling us that global cooling was going to destroy the Earth. One thing is for sure, scientists realize that the world's climate changes. As to whether this rather mild warming period in any way represents the actions of humans, there is no consensus.

You're just plain wrong. There is an overwhelming consensus.
http://m.npr.org/story/137309964?url=/2 ... tists-sure

[araneae]

P.S. Scientists have to pay bills, feed the kids, and put clothing on their family's backs too. If man made global warming means you get funding for your project, you're not going to be too eager to support or explore the other possibilities, cause there's no money in that. When it means getting your funding cut (meaning you lose your job) by disagreeing, altruism all to often gets tossed out the window, even in the scientific communities. Just look back at the history of scientists who were black listed and ostracized for voicing their non-popular theories that ended up being right.

Most scientific researchers are academics who are paid to teach and their research is often carried out by their graduate students. Few are making any real money by doing research alone. Losing funding for particular research doesn't mean job loss. Your accusation that this is all a hoax to make some cash is pretty ridiculous and frankly insulting to the people who do the research. There is always funding to look at the alternative theory and disproving a theory is often regarded as highly as proving it in the scientific community.

[defenestrate]

I'm aware that the climate is, has been, and will continue to change. So are many scientists. Most sources use this as a basis to assume that scientists also agree that man is largely responsible, when this is often simply not the case.

Continually beating the same drum about "EVERYBODY KNOWS AND AGREES SO CONVERSATION IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF SCIENCE" does *not* support the scientific method in any way. It is the standard tactic of politics on almost all scientific or pseudoscientific matters. And having Al Gore, the UN, and some scientists run around telling people how to live their lives while many of the major proponents get rich off of these ideas, no matter how difficult to make these changes are for regular people, is neither science nor human progress. It is pretty much cult-like behavior. That the country that was founded on freedom of (and from) religion is skeptical should not be that alarming.