Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well a little follow-up research revealed that my initial enthusiasm for this fellow and his article was completely unfounded. Please read the following,and then tell me you don't think this guy is publishing biased articles.
He and two of his peers are founders of a group set up by and to help the oil companies the identical way the scientific organization highlighted in the movie "Thank you for smoking" (based on fact) was set up by the Tobacco companies to cover up and oppose anything which came out about smoking causing lung cancer (and other illnesses).
It's kind of sick actually. I would hope you can find other global warming skeptics who aren't so linked with oil company agenda. I mean really, this is just outright sick folks... if you haven't ever read about the way the tobacco companies covered up the truth perhaps you won't get it - but the organization headed by this man and two of his peers is coincidentially structured and funded the same exact way. If that doesn't turn your stomach, then I don't know what would. Timothy F. Ball - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia NRSP Controlled by Energy Lobbyists | DeSmogBlog
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnbound2day
The oil industry is accused of spending 16 million dollars between 1999 and 2005 funding "biased" reports. The american government provided 2 billion dollars in studies on climate change an increasing amount each year.
I've never seen a smear campaign so strong against people opposing a scientific viewpoint. If the evidence is so overwhelming and strong on their side, why is it that the alarmist refuse debates over and over and over with the tired old line, "the debate is over". The only debate I know of on the subject that was publicly held was in New York last year and the alarmists group had their a$$ handed to them by the skeptics. I would welcome someone to point me to any other debates that I must have missed.
You know I did see another person on this forum post something to the effect of your first paragraph - I don't think you and the other person understand the nature of privately-funded research vs government aka public funded research.
Fundamentally, private-funded research is sponsored by corporations or wealthy individuals to find a particular result which will lead to profit (either through a new product, a patentable discovery/invention, or knowledge which supports an existing product or service).
Government & public-funded research is to facilitate growth of the scientific body of knowledge, through sound & repeatable studies. Outcome is not predetermined and the results may result in a patent or two by the researchers, but generally there is no direct financial benefit other than the actual grant or research funding itself which includes built in monies to be used for not just funding the equipment & materials needed for the research but also a temporary income for the research team. The government or non-for-profit public funding source doesn't see direct financial benefit from their research studies - it's money which generally is spent, and then not recovered. The funding organization when not the government, gets to put their name on any resulting research studies which when positive results in more donor monies given to them. The scientists for public funded research projects generally have no motivation to find a predetermined result as much as they just want to conduct good science which when peer-reviewed, is reviewed positively, so that in they can look forward to continued, better or more interesting research opportunities in the future (along with a well-developed reputation and perhaps historical mention in the future).
The scientists for private funded research projects are always looking for ways to both pay for themselves and increase the profitability and growth of their sponsoring companies who then typically reward them with higher pay and many times a piece of any profits which are generated (via licensing/royalties, invention/product sales). So why do scientists pursue private funded research opportunities for particular corporations or industry organizations? - because you can make millions of dollars and fantastic risidual income as this kind of scientist.
There's fundamentally nothing wrong with privately funded research - except that when discussing the results, it is always important to consider the source of the funding. Just as the scientists who worked for the TASSC wouldn't ever dare to publish research results which implicated the Tobacco companies as distributing poison-sticks responsible for killing 500k+ people a year, the scientists now working for NRSP wouldn't dare implicate Oil companies in causing global warming. They wouldn't do those things because their research funding would be cut, the incomes & incentives & the risidual income they each earn would also get cut, and they would find themselves now having to apply for and retaining public funded research monies (which inevitably are less profitable).
You state that the government has spent more money on climate change research than the oil industry. You are right, but I say there is nothing wrong with that. It's not a smeer campaign, it's massive funding to search for the truth - discover, validate, and revalidate the results.
There is something you need to know though. In the oil industry funded research investment figure you provided, you will not find the amount of money spent on the organizations set up at arms length as fake "independant grassroots organizations" by the oil industry such as the NRSP. Unless you can check all the financial assets of the scientists working for such organizations (LOL - and include the offshore bank accounts they probably have), none of us can get our hands on that real investment figure. Corporations have well established ways of burying financial numbers within others to hide things that could be incriminating and thus could send stock values plummeting.
All that said - you had one final request, a request to be sent a link or information from a serious global warming discussion. Well there was one which was televised early this year - it was conducted for Congress as they finally got their act together to try to hear the truth from Al Gore. I listened/watched it and indeed congress had plenty of oppositional views/points ready to go (pretty much everything one reads here) - watch for yourself: Capitol Hill Broadcasting Network - Al Gore - Part 2 Capitol Hill Broadcasting Network - Al Gore - Part 1
You know I did see another person on this forum post something to the effect of your first paragraph - I don't think you and the other person understand the nature of privately-funded research vs government aka public funded research.
Fundamentally, private-funded research is sponsored by corporations or wealthy individuals to find a particular result which will lead to profit (either through a new product, a patentable discovery/invention, or knowledge which supports an existing product or service).
Government & public-funded research is to facilitate growth of the scientific body of knowledge, through sound & repeatable studies. Outcome is not predetermined and the results may result in a patent or two by the researchers, but generally there is no direct financial benefit other than the actual grant or research funding itself which includes built in monies to be used for not just funding the equipment & materials needed for the research but also a temporary income for the research team. The government or non-for-profit public funding source doesn't see direct financial benefit from their research studies - it's money which generally is spent, and then not recovered. The funding organization when not the government, gets to put their name on any resulting research studies which when positive results in more donor monies given to them. The scientists for public funded research projects generally have no motivation to find a predetermined result as much as they just want to conduct good science which when peer-reviewed, is reviewed positively, so that in they can look forward to continued, better or more interesting research opportunities in the future (along with a well-developed reputation and perhaps historical mention in the future).
The scientists for private funded research projects are always looking for ways to both pay for themselves and increase the profitability and growth of their sponsoring companies who then typically reward them with higher pay and many times a piece of any profits which are generated (via licensing/royalties, invention/product sales). So why do scientists pursue private funded research opportunities for particular corporations or industry organizations? - because you can make millions of dollars and fantastic risidual income as this kind of scientist.
There's fundamentally nothing wrong with privately funded research - except that when discussing the results, it is always important to consider the source of the funding. Just as the scientists who worked for the TASSC wouldn't ever dare to publish research results which implicated the Tobacco companies as distributing poison-sticks responsible for killing 500k+ people a year, the scientists now working for NRSP wouldn't dare implicate Oil companies in causing global warming. They wouldn't do those things because their research funding would be cut, the incomes & incentives & the risidual income they each earn would also get cut, and they would find themselves now having to apply for and retaining public funded research monies (which inevitably are less profitable).
You state that the government has spent more money on climate change research than the oil industry. You are right, but I say there is nothing wrong with that. It's not a smeer campaign, it's massive funding to search for the truth - discover, validate, and revalidate the results.
There is something you need to know though. In the oil industry funded research investment figure you provided, you will not find the amount of money spent on the organizations set up at arms length as fake "independant grassroots organizations" by the oil industry such as the NRSP. Unless you can check all the financial assets of the scientists working for such organizations (LOL - and include the offshore bank accounts they probably have), none of us can get our hands on that real investment figure. Corporations have well established ways of burying financial numbers within others to hide things that could be incriminating and thus could send stock values plummeting.
All that said - you had one final request, a request to be sent a link or information from a serious global warming discussion. Well there was one which was televised early this year - it was conducted for Congress as they finally got their act together to try to hear the truth from Al Gore. I listened/watched it and indeed congress had plenty of oppositional views/points ready to go (pretty much everything one reads here) - watch for yourself: Capitol Hill Broadcasting Network - Al Gore - Part 2 Capitol Hill Broadcasting Network - Al Gore - Part 1
More to chew on (broken link). It's a long read but it's good.
And let me ask you this. You seem willing to do all the research required to find information to discredit a source, yet you're telling me you're unwilling to do your own research to find scientists that have different opinions on global warming. Why is that???
If you're so anxious to learn as much as possible about this I'd figure you'd do your own scouring, right??? Why must I do the work for you???
...you can pile all the theories and data you wish on top of a base assumption which seems to be the key term that you are misunderstanding. The house of the global warming alarmists is being built on a paper mache foundation.
First, I congratulate you for presenting intelligent arguments, making this debate more fun that the usual mud-slinging stupidity that goes on between two warring factions.
I agree with you more than you know, and this presents potential problems for everything YOU believe in. The human mind works exactly as you (and the author of the article) describe, by formulating theories and then confirming those theories by selectively collecting input. We assume that a person is "creepy" and then we see what we expect. This contributes to fear, racism, homophobia and wars, as well as providing the foundation for our sense of stability and perceptions of "reality."
If you're going to pick apart one theory then you have to pick ALL of them apart. There is no truth other than what people believe. Where does that leave us? Nowhere. Science provided us with the means to have this debate online. I trust them for practical purposes more than I trust those who are driven by mysticism, but when it comes time to face my own death I'll probably go with the mystics because they're better at giving answers to questions that science cannot address.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VAFury
Answer why it seems in the past before human influence that global temperatures would rise and a CO2 spike would follow that temperature spike??? Why is that??? And then why after said CO2 spike would temperatures then begin to recede???
This is so much like being on a Creationist website because the arguments are all identical and the one you just presented is one that has recently been circulating among the skeptics. CO2 is known to trap heat --- that can be demonstrated in a laboratory. CO2 rises in response to a warmer atmosphere because more of it becomes released from places where it's stored. Thus, all you're doing with this argument is suggesting that global warming will be much worse than predicted, and all measurements are in agreement with you on this. As we warm the planet, the planet responds by warming itself. Methane is being released from melting permafrost and Siberian peat bogs, for example, and CO2 that is trapped in frozen pockets gets released as ice melts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VAFury
Hey..... Whatever happened to that catostrophic hole in the ozone by the by???
It's still there. Read a science journal and stop getting your information from the Fox News, Creationist and Oil Industry websites that create these goofy straw man arguments deflecting attention from the facts.
By the way, the ozone hole did improve dramatically after CFC's were banned. Apparently humans helped create the ozone hole, helped shrink it, and we're now trying to figure out why it's still hanging around. At least it's not as bad as it would have been had we not taken action to stop it from growing.
You're smart, that is evident. But you don't seem well-informed.
More to chew on (broken link). It's a long read but it's good.
And let me ask you this. You seem willing to do all the research required to find information to discredit a source, yet you're telling me you're unwilling to do your own research to find scientists that have different opinions on global warming. Why is that???
If you're so anxious to learn as much as possible about this I'd figure you'd do your own scouring, right??? Why must I do the work for you???
Maybe you should take a gander at this to get a little better idea of what the Idsos are all about:
You know I did see another person on this forum post something to the effect of your first paragraph - I don't think you and the other person understand the nature of privately-funded research vs government aka public funded research.
Fundamentally, private-funded research is sponsored by corporations or wealthy individuals to find a particular result which will lead to profit (either through a new product, a patentable discovery/invention, or knowledge which supports an existing product or service).
Government & public-funded research is to facilitate growth of the scientific body of knowledge, through sound & repeatable studies. Outcome is not predetermined and the results may result in a patent or two by the researchers, but generally there is no direct financial benefit other than the actual grant or research funding itself which includes built in monies to be used for not just funding the equipment & materials needed for the research but also a temporary income for the research team. The government or non-for-profit public funding source doesn't see direct financial benefit from their research studies - it's money which generally is spent, and then not recovered. The funding organization when not the government, gets to put their name on any resulting research studies which when positive results in more donor monies given to them. The scientists for public funded research projects generally have no motivation to find a predetermined result as much as they just want to conduct good science which when peer-reviewed, is reviewed positively, so that in they can look forward to continued, better or more interesting research opportunities in the future (along with a well-developed reputation and perhaps historical mention in the future).
The scientists for private funded research projects are always looking for ways to both pay for themselves and increase the profitability and growth of their sponsoring companies who then typically reward them with higher pay and many times a piece of any profits which are generated (via licensing/royalties, invention/product sales). So why do scientists pursue private funded research opportunities for particular corporations or industry organizations? - because you can make millions of dollars and fantastic risidual income as this kind of scientist.
There's fundamentally nothing wrong with privately funded research - except that when discussing the results, it is always important to consider the source of the funding. Just as the scientists who worked for the TASSC wouldn't ever dare to publish research results which implicated the Tobacco companies as distributing poison-sticks responsible for killing 500k+ people a year, the scientists now working for NRSP wouldn't dare implicate Oil companies in causing global warming. They wouldn't do those things because their research funding would be cut, the incomes & incentives & the risidual income they each earn would also get cut, and they would find themselves now having to apply for and retaining public funded research monies (which inevitably are less profitable).
You state that the government has spent more money on climate change research than the oil industry. You are right, but I say there is nothing wrong with that. It's not a smeer campaign, it's massive funding to search for the truth - discover, validate, and revalidate the results.
There is something you need to know though. In the oil industry funded research investment figure you provided, you will not find the amount of money spent on the organizations set up at arms length as fake "independant grassroots organizations" by the oil industry such as the NRSP. Unless you can check all the financial assets of the scientists working for such organizations (LOL - and include the offshore bank accounts they probably have), none of us can get our hands on that real investment figure. Corporations have well established ways of burying financial numbers within others to hide things that could be incriminating and thus could send stock values plummeting.
All that said - you had one final request, a request to be sent a link or information from a serious global warming discussion. Well there was one which was televised early this year - it was conducted for Congress as they finally got their act together to try to hear the truth from Al Gore. I listened/watched it and indeed congress had plenty of oppositional views/points ready to go (pretty much everything one reads here) - watch for yourself: Capitol Hill Broadcasting Network - Al Gore - Part 2 Capitol Hill Broadcasting Network - Al Gore - Part 1
Unless you can prove that the intent of privately funded studies is to undermine common knowledge, you are only ranting with unsubstantiated claims. With the oil industry having a good bit to lose, why wouldn't they fund their own studies to first of all: see how true the current speculation is, and b: see how much they are involved so that they can make their own moves towards reducing impacts rather than having the government shove things down their throat.
If you read the information from Exxon's CEO, it is quiet clear that they have invested far more money in implementing changes to clean up their act than they have spent on funding studies.
So until anyone here provides undeniable FACTS that the research dollars provided by privated industries is being used for the MAIN purpose of undermining truth, you have NOTHING.
As for the Capitol Hill thing? Already watched it, and it was long, boring, and full of rhetoric and question dodging. When you debate, you are not allowed to dodge things by changing the subject or you lose. The links you provided were not to a debate, they were to a political meeting.
Unless you can prove that the intent of privately funded studies is to undermine common knowledge, you are only ranting with unsubstantiated claims. With the oil industry having a good bit to lose, why wouldn't they fund their own studies to first of all: see how true the current speculation is, and b: see how much they are involved so that they can make their own moves towards reducing impacts rather than having the government shove things down their throat.
This is smart corporate policy and is precisely what you would expect. The intelligent two-pronged strategy of a corporation in a controversial industry goes like this:
1. Start finding ways to adjust to the fact that the public knows you're doing harm --- examples include:
A. Changes voluntarily made by fast food eateries to reduced trans fats and improve their menus with healthier items, while funding research to combat the negative publicity about their food and advertising tactics
B. Tobacco companies provided reduced-tar and nicotine cigarettes and better filters while continuing to claim that smoking wasn't dangerous and burying the evidence against their claims.
2. Do everything possible to confuse the public by undermining independent science research claims with "new studies" that show "conflicting results"
Oil companies are doing what tobacco companies have always done. What's the diff?
And again, I claim that government-funded research is more likely to be tainted in the direction of supporting our oil-and-auto-based economy rather than the unsubstantiated claims that the government has a motive to destroy its own economy through research that demonstrates the stupidity of their own policies. What is the motive of researchers to undercut the very economy that sustains them? This will gradually shift as more companies stand to profit from wind, nuclear, solar and other sources of energy, but for now the power is all on the side of the carbon-emissions industry and the government it pays for.
More to chew on (broken link). It's a long read but it's good.
And let me ask you this. You seem willing to do all the research required to find information to discredit a source, yet you're telling me you're unwilling to do your own research to find scientists that have different opinions on global warming. Why is that???
If you're so anxious to learn as much as possible about this I'd figure you'd do your own scouring, right??? Why must I do the work for you???
You know - if not for the fact that the 1st 50 hits on the researcher's name you provided via a very simple Google search were discrediting, I wouldn't have said anything because I didn't want to spend more than 10 minutes searching for anything on this - I just wanted to learn more about him and others with opinions like his. I ended up only spending about 2 minutes searching, and another 15 to compose my response so it would be well articulated on record... LOL (FYI, as a seasoned professional information researcher, I'd humbly say that usually 10 minutes of my search time is equivalent to about 2-3+ hours of most average searchers)
I happened to have met Al Gore and heard him speak in person this year, additionally, I heard his congressional testimony, and lastly I am literally an information junkie - I love to read. I also love talk radio and yes I've listened to Rush Limbaugh, and I also watch/listen to the news throughout the day as well. I definitely don't have an awesome memory for retaining "facts/trivia" but I do get the gist of what I hear and have a long memory for that. My interest in global warming perhaps has been spurred on by the lack of credible arguments heard against it for decades (LOL - and lack of credible politicians who I now realize many of which are just idiots who think because they say something loudly, it is right - I mean I remember when Bush Sr. said that Al was essentially an environmental nutcase, but I was wondering at the time why my parents and many other baby boomers continued to smoke, litter, produce massive garbage, and waste free clean water like it was unlimited). I went from agreeing with the skeptics to slowly realizing that like a lot of what corporate and political america (and even personal america) does today is to make decisions based upon short-term financial impacts without moral or ethical considerations, nor without long-term financial & environmental impacts well thought-out. Perhaps it's in human nature to screw things up, but regardless... it seems really bizarre that anyone would say that the exhaust from a car or factory today is not harmful to our health and that of our planet. Go ahead start your car up in a closed garage... LOL, not good for you.
The anti-global warming movement is almost a red herring in itself. I mean what is the point of the global-warming movement? - fundamentally to get people to stop polluting the environment, so we don't f*** it up irreversably right? Well then why is there an anti-global warming movement at all? What you think cars are good for the environment (or anything which combusts gasoline/diesel)? What you think factories spewing toxic emissions is ok? You think companies and people dumping into our lakes, rivers, and oceans are ok? I want to know if it's true that the earth is warming, we all do. But let's not haphazardly throw the baby out with the bath water here. Even if you disagree that the earth is warming, or just cannot understand the science of it, are any of the 10 policy changes that Al Gore has recommended not good for the environment (and humans) overall? Do you just not care about the environment (as joking about it rather than answering questions about it reveals of some political candidates)
Don't get so lost in your anti-global warming thoughts that you don't start thinking about things which are irrefuteable... such as... wow, everyone today is now paying much more for oil/gas, actually paying for clean water (when it used to be free), paying for clean air (via house air filtration systems, air duct cleaning, hepa this and that), no longer can anyone just jump into the ocean to enjoy spashing around due to pollution, some cities have such poor air quality that residents have chronic respiratory issues, and all this just in the past what... 50 years? LOL - that's not a good sign people.
This will gradually shift as more companies stand to profit from wind, nuclear, solar and other sources of energy, but for now the power is all on the side of the carbon-emissions industry and the government it pays for.
Do you not think this industries are currently pushing the global warming alarmism as hard as possible because they will profit immensely from any changes? I'm still scratching my head as to why the hell I wasted my money on CFL bulbs for my entire house. They all have mercury in them and I've had 2 burn out already in less time than any of my incandescents typically have. Then I'm left driving 20 miles to the nearest place that will accept them for recycle. Wow, efficiency. Not to mention I don't use lights any more than necessary and I live in a place where hydroelectricity is used, so there is actually less environmental damage from a standard tungsten filament bulb than there would be from CFL's in my case. But there are already many groups pushing for a ban on incandescents and it has already happened in Europe. Wal-Mart is pushing to sell 1 million CFL's this year, but have they figured out how they are going to help recycle them? How many people with throw away bulbs that are working to put them in?
My main point is think before you jump.
And with the tobacco and fast food industry, sure you can draw comparisons. Just as one can draw comparisons with greenhouse gases and WMD's.
I mean what is the point of the global-warming movement? - fundamentally to get people to stop polluting the environment, so we don't f*** it up irreversably right?
If it wasn ONLY about cleaning up the environment and limiting REAL pollutants, I would not have a problem with it. The MSM and political push on global warming legislation is based on CO2, which is an organic gas that is required for plants and vegetation to survive. Why isn't the main focus on all the other gases we spew into the atmosphere that are unnatural? Why isn't the focus on mercury contaminated water being pumped into lakes and rivers along with other industrial sludge and waste? Not everyone who opposes the mainstream view is opposed to caring for the environment and many people who oppose it are more concerned that the wrong thing is being focused on which will lead to the 100% known issues being ignored or being put on the back burner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbuszu
Don't get so lost in your anti-global warming thoughts that you don't start thinking about things which are irrefuteable... such as... wow, everyone today is now paying much more for oil/gas, actually paying for clean water (when it used to be free), paying for clean air (via house air filtration systems, air duct cleaning, hepa this and that), no longer can anyone just jump into the ocean to enjoy spashing around due to pollution, some cities have such poor air quality that residents have chronic respiratory issues, and all this just in the past what... 50 years? LOL - that's not a good sign people.
I agree that air quality is bad and needs to be taken care of. When was the last time you saw a house air filtration system that removes CO2? Why is it that ozone and small particulate matter is the primary cause of respiratory issues, yet all you hear when you turn on the latest story of global warming is CO2? Why is it that you don't hear people focusing on methane gas if they are really concerned about the greenhouse effect when it is 10 times more potent molecule for molecule in creating a greenhouse effect.
I have no problem with the idea of cleaning up our world, but it seems to me that the train is being derailed with CO2 credit trading schemes and cap and trade schemes that when looked at are a carbon copy (no pun intended) of wealth redistribution schemes.
Do you not think this industries are currently pushing the global warming alarmism as hard as possible because they will profit immensely from any changes? I'm still scratching my head as to why the hell I wasted my money on CFL bulbs for my entire house. They all have mercury in them and I've had 2 burn out already in less time than any of my incandescents typically have. Then I'm left driving 20 miles to the nearest place that will accept them for recycle. Wow, efficiency. Not to mention I don't use lights any more than necessary and I live in a place where hydroelectricity is used, so there is actually less environmental damage from a standard tungsten filament bulb than there would be from CFL's in my case. But there are already many groups pushing for a ban on incandescents and it has already happened in Europe. Wal-Mart is pushing to sell 1 million CFL's this year, but have they figured out how they are going to help recycle them? How many people with throw away bulbs that are working to put them in?
My main point is think before you jump.
And with the tobacco and fast food industry, sure you can draw comparisons. Just as one can draw comparisons with greenhouse gases and WMD's.
Not a good argument re CFLs:
Berkeley Energy Office (http://www.cityofberkeley.info/sustainable/Powerplay%20articles/16Powerplay.Mercury.CFL.html - broken link)
If CFLs are in demand, then market forces will drive the creation of innovative recycling methods and they will become more numerous. ALL of our lighting in our home and our offices is CFL and the air-conditioning costs dropped noticeably because of the dramatically cooler output, thus even more savings in energy output.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
