Obama wins Nobel Peace prize

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by burlesontiger, Oct 9, 2009.

Page 14 of 17
  1. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Ahh, The Manhattan declaration. :lol:

    As you point out yourself, this isn't a scientific organization nor did they offer a scientific study, they are "an international association of scientists, economists and energy and policy experts working to promote better public understanding of climate change science and policy worldwide. ICSC is committed to providing a highly credible alternative to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) thereby fostering a more rational, open discussion about climate issues."

    This is industry's pet group of challengers to the IPCC. Their job is to be energy representatives contrary to the IPCC and they say it openly.

    Not kooks this time, but representatives of the polluting industries. Lets look at some of the key players.

    Timothy Ball, retired professor who acted as a consultant for Friends of Science who are part funded by the oil industry.

    Robert M Carter, The Institute of Public Affairs is funded by Mining companies BHP-Billington and Western Mining Corp and oil companies Caltex, Esso Australia and Shell.

    Richard Lindzen, consultant to oil and coal interests whose speech 'Global warming: The origin and nature of alleged scientific consensus' was underwritten by OPEC.

    S. Fred Singer, a physicist runs the Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) and has been a paid consultant for several oil companies and has received multiple grants from ExxonMobil to fund the SEPP.

    Patrick J. Michaels, who has received funding from the German Coal Mining Assoc, the Edison Electric Institute, the Cyprus Minerals Company and the Intermountain Rural Electric Assoc. to fund his World Climate Review newsletter and blog.

    Robert C. Balling, Jr, a Geography professor who had the Kuwaiti government pay for a version of his DVD 'A Heated Debate' to be released in the Middle East and conducted an ExxonMobil-funded study in 2002 entitled "The 2000 United States Historical Climate Network Update: What Changed".

    Tom Harris, a former head of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, set up this organisation on the initiative of the High Park Group, a lobby organization with clients that include the Canadian Electricity Association and the Canadian Gas Association.

    Tim Patterson, a scientist is a member of both the aforementioned Friends of Science and the Natural Resources Stewardship Project?

    Environmental Policy. Environmental Science. They are two diffferent things.
     
    red55, Oct 19, 2009
    #131
  2. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    I'm not going to have a discussion with an article. Please stop posting dissenting articles for me to read if you aren't prepared to discuss the issues within them.

    Consensus does not mean everybody. It means the vast majority. You keep cherrypicking individual dissenters and ignoring the consensus. Not my problem. I've already noted out that ALL of the major scientific bodies on the planet support AGW. Why do you think that is?

    Their products and their body of work. Real scientific products--peer-reviewed papers in refereed journals from a scientists with the proper background both educational and career experience. Like most expeerts one must consider the background.

    I do not consider articles in popular magazines, blogs, lectures, etc. to match this, especially those by people with no reputation in the field.

    An assertion, not a fact. Make your case.

    A fact, but irrelevant. Climate models are among many tools that allow analysis to be conducted to determine results and form conclusions. Whatever is your point?

    False. There is no good evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was a globally warm period comparable to today. Regionally, there may have been places that exhibited notable warmth -- Europe, for example -- but all global proxy reconstructions agree it is warmer now, and the temperature is rising faster now, than at any time in the last one or even two thousand years.


    Misleading. Scientific consensus is not mere opinion. It is backed by a vast body of provable scientific evidence.

    You are not being hard on me, amigo, you're revealing your own limits. :wink:

    I dish it out, so I'm prepared to take it. I'm just a bit weary of repeating so much that I've already addressed in other threads on this topic. So I hope you are almost done. I just didn't want to be so disrespectful as to refuse to address your comments at all, because of my weariness.
     
    red55, Oct 19, 2009
    #132
  3. flabengal

    flabengal Founding Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2003
    Messages:
    1,320
    Likes Received:
    84
    Originally posted by Red:

    Wait a minute, when I suggest that scientist may be swayed by financial interests it constitutes a "lurid suggestion"? It seems you freely admit that the source of funding plays a part in the validity or lack of validity in a scientists position.

    Originally posted by Red:

    So you think that industry is obliged to allow scientists funded by entities interested in raising taxes and imposing regulations on those industries.....to......to what, exactly? Just passively sit by and allow government sponsered groups to push forth their agenda? What is unethical about industry defending themselves against government encroachment on their business? Shouldn't they have their day in court as well? Which side do the facts actually support, government or industry?

    It seems to me the question should be in regard to the scientific validity of their arguments. Wouldn't you agree? What part of the statements by the Manhatten Declaration :lol: can you scientifically invalidate?

    It seems to me you always impune the source in regard to those opposed to the IPCC's assertion. I'll have to review the posts but are those opposed the IPCC actually incorrect? Sounds like you just don't like the political views of those opposed to the IPCC. Aren't you mixing politics with science, here?

    Originally posted by Red:

    Ok, how about the orginal graph by Mann? The hockey stick graph....was the graph included in the report correct or incorrect? How did it come to be included in the report? What did Mann, et al. have to say about it? What difference does the revised graph make.....does it help or hurt the proponents of global warming?


    How about we examine the source of funding and the amount of funding for the IPCC :lol:? I'll bet you these is more money in being on the IPCC's side then against it.

    I will look into that and get back to you.
     
    flabengal, Oct 19, 2009
    #133
  4. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    This hasn't happened, of course. I know good and well that you can't prove it and won't even try.

    More martin trying to bait me with lame rhetoric. You will have to offer much more than the same old crap before I will bother with you on this topic again. FlaBengal is kicking your ass as a debater. He doesn't have much material to work with, but he did a good job using what he had and has not resorted to overt martinesque attempts to discredit his opponent by mere mocking and jeering backed by nothing . . . scientific . . . whatsoever.
     
    red55, Oct 19, 2009
    #134
  5. flabengal

    flabengal Founding Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2003
    Messages:
    1,320
    Likes Received:
    84
    no worries, i understand....think we've beat this thing to death. Enjoyed it though and I know more about the topic than i did a couple of days ago.

    anytime want to argue again, start another thread on evolution, gay marriage, the catholic church, etc., i'll be happy to chime in.

    til next time....
     
    flabengal, Oct 19, 2009
    #135
  6. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    of course it has. they predict a brutal hurricane season, doesnt happen. they predict a certain level of sea leval rise, it triples. they predict warming, the earth hasnt warmed since the 90's. there are oodles of examples. i see it all the time.


    have the climate scientists predicted that the earth wouldnt be measurably warming since the 90's? no. they predicted the opposite!

    again, the earth is always warming and cooling, to expect anything else would be insane. it is a desperate attempt by humans to insert themselves as a relvant factor in everything. like a loudmouth at a cocktail party constantly mentioning his part in every anecdote.

    i am still wating for the answer to this: if the globe was much warmer at other times before humans, and something had to bring the world out of the numerous ice ages, what was that, and how fast does it work, and how can we know that factor is not the cause now? but the scientist that admits he doesnt know doesnt get the publicity. the UN wont hire him for the IPCC, which is a political body.

    real scientists are driven by curiosity, not a desire for policy change.

    we are discussing global warming now, not my lame debate skills vs flabengal.
     
    martin, Oct 19, 2009
    #136
  7. SabanFan

    SabanFan The voice of reason

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    26,080
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    The polar bear population has increased.
     
    SabanFan, Oct 19, 2009
    #137
  8. flabengal

    flabengal Founding Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2003
    Messages:
    1,320
    Likes Received:
    84
    In regard to the funding the big bucks are definitely on the the side of the IPCC.

    So, if money corrupts.....more money corrupts....more?

    link for those interested:

    .: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.


    Originally posted by Red:

    There is an ongoing debate about statistical parameters used to construct northern hemisphere mean temperature changes over the past millennium. You offer some lurid suggestions above without having established that any mistakes were made, figures falsified, or numbers massaged. So, make your case. Be specific.



    Originally Posted by flabengal
    Posted by Red:

    ok, here is my case on the......hockey stick/medieval warm period controversy....

    The statement of Dr. David Deming:

    link:http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/20...“getting-rid”-of-the-medieval-warming-period/


    So Mann et al., did indeed publish the initial graph which does not infact include the medieval warm period with the resulting impression that the 20th century termperature range was unprecedented. That is not supported by the scientific evidence which is why it has been revised to the redlined graph.....giving an altogether different impression of the 20th century relative to the past.

    Bad science.....made to fit the agenda. Or would you like us to believe this hockey stick graph wasn't included in and was not a major thrust of the initial IPCC report?
     
    flabengal, Oct 19, 2009
    #138
  9. flabengal

    flabengal Founding Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2003
    Messages:
    1,320
    Likes Received:
    84
    Anyway, was good fun, Red....think I'll start a new thread on evidence of the Biblical Flood just to wind you up a little more!:hihi:
     
    flabengal, Oct 19, 2009
    #139
  10. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    "They"?

    Give me a break. You invent examples but never actually present them. You going to pull out Monckton and Lindzen again, too? :bncry:
     
    red55, Oct 19, 2009
    #140
Page 14 of 17

Share This Page