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.
And there are numerous pro-AGW funded research funded through scientists who have shown strong bias as well, though you do not seem to object to their claims? Maybe this discussion is better served discussing "what" is actually being claimed rather than "who" is actually claiming it. This way, we can avoid assumptive claims of motive and actually obtain quantifiable evidence of each.
If a liar tells the truth, does the truth become a lie? According to the premise of your argument it does as your entire focus is on the person making the argument, not the argument being made. A typical fallacious position made by those who hide a feigned support for objectiveness behind that of a subjective agenda.
Did you read the article? The OP was pointing out the fact that big oil admitted human contribution to global warming until they didn't. Don't you find that disturbing? Wouldn't you admit that any corporation that is in jeopardy of losing its edge would fight tooth and nail to negate any information contrary to what gives them their power? It was the auto industry along with the oil industry that destroyed an excellent rail system in California to get more freeways built and more toxic fumes spewed into the atmosphere in order to build their wealth. Why would anyone not find them totally suspect in killing an issue that should be addressed. I would rather err on the side of common sense. Our oceans are becoming acidic and that is reason enough to get off of the crud that has done nothing but poison the environment.
Last edited by sickofnyc; 11-19-2009 at 11:09 AM..
Did you read the article? The OP was pointing out the fact that big oil admitted human contribution to global warming until they didn't. Don't you find that disturbing? Wouldn't you admit that any corporation that is in jeopardy of losing its edge would fight tooth and nail to negate any information contrary to what gives them their power? It was the auto industry along with the oil industry that destroyed an excellent rail system in California to get more freeways built and more toxic fumes spewed into the atmosphere in order to build their wealth. Why would anyone not find them totally suspect in killing an issue that should be addressed. I would rather err on the side of common sense. Our oceans are becoming acidic and that is reason enough to get off of the crud that has done nothing but poison the environment.
Did you read any number of the posts that contested your claim or do you simply cheery pick like climate science to strengthen your position? Go back and answer their contests and we can continue on. I will be waiting.
As for the bold, its all assumptive loose speculation on your part which asks me to also play along with your assumptions.
I am not concerned with the politics as it is about as useful as gossip at the local barber shop. Now if you would like to actually discuss the quantifiable, then by all means... lets look at the data and discuss it.
Did you read any number of the posts that contested your claim or do you simply cheery pick like climate science to strengthen your position? Go back and answer their contests and we can continue on. I will be waiting.
As for the bold, its all assumptive loose speculation on your part which asks me to also play along with your assumptions.
I am not concerned with the politics as it is about as useful as gossip at the local barber shop. Now if you would like to actually discuss the quantifiable, then by all means... lets look at the data and discuss it.
Where does politics come into play in anything that I stated? Why did you bother to "bold" any of my post if you did not even address it? Everything I posted is backed up with many articles if you bother to google it. Are you defending the very industries that have screwed us over? Show me where I "cherry picked" instead of using your own propaganda driven talking points. You totally missed the point...the article is about the industires that are motivated for their own self-serving purpose to distort accurate info and those are the very articles you are stating that should be taken serioulsy. You go ahead and believe what you are spoon fed by the culprits and I'll make my determinatons based upon logic and responsible stewardship of the planet. Why don't you show me data that states that CO2 is not having an adverse affect on the oceans. This has already been proven, so I doubt that you will find a truthful article that says otherwise.
1) There is no significant GW
2) Even if there is some,it probably is cyclical & astrophysical,not human activity induced.
3) Carbon is innocent,no one can prove beyond reasonable doubt that carbon per se directly creates GW.
This whole show of environmentalism is staged by the international Socialists,to extract more tax money to finance their "kingdom",the gov sector of all economies.
It is an international conspiracy against capitalism & the American way of life.
1) There is no significant GW
2) Even if there is some,it probably is cyclical & astrophysical,not human activity induced.
3) Carbon is innocent,no one can prove beyond reasonable doubt that carbon per se directly creates GW.
This whole show of environmentalism is staged by the international Socialists,to extract more tax money to finance their "kingdom",the gov sector of all economies.
It is an international conspiracy against capitalism & the American way of life.
1) There is no significant GW
2) Even if there is some,it probably is cyclical & astrophysical,not human activity induced.
3) Carbon is innocent,no one can prove beyond reasonable doubt that carbon per se directly creates GW.
This whole show of environmentalism is staged by the international Socialists,to extract more tax money to finance their "kingdom",the gov sector of all economies.
It is an international conspiracy against capitalism & the American way of life.
Carbon Dioxide does cause warming. The question is how much?
We know that the impact of CO2 as it relates to warming is logarithmic and at somewhere between 900 ppmv and 1000ppmv CO2 will no longer have a warming impact.
We also know that there have been periods in Earths history where the CO2 concentration was 7000 ppmv without while the Temperature of the earth was at times 10C warmer and at other times vastly cooler than it is today.
IPCC estimates show that at 950ppmv, the Earths temperature will not be more than about 4C or 5C above the average they currently use. That figure is not out of line with past warming periods that did not cause significant harm to humanity.
We also know that IPCC has warned that the CO2 Concentration will be around 870 by 2100; however the observed rate of increase is not matching the IPPC warning. They have provided accurate information about the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere however, the Earth’ feedback systems seem to be dealing with that increase at an ever expanding rate. While the input remains on target, the rate of increase in the atmosphere is not rising as expected. The current pace will put the Earths CO2 Concentration at about 517 by 2100. That means the temp. Rise will be half what it would be at 870 or there about. That is as long as there are not other inputs and feedbacks that impede the rise in temperature like there are related to the rise in CO2 concentration.
The science for destructive Anthropogenic Global Warming fails at every turn. Warming is not occurring along the track it was predicted to follow. Every single model that has provided projections have been wrong. What we have seen in observed science proves that the warming is no where near the theory nor is the warming we have seen proven to be related to CO2 alone.
Nor has the rate of warming experienced since 1979 to 1998 materially different from the warming seen at least twice in the early part of the 20th century. Given those considerations, (along with a host of others) it is impossible for the science to suggest that CO2 Concentrations are causing harmful warming.
And lets not even get into discussions about past warming periods…
Where does politics come into play in anything that I stated? Why did you bother to "bold" any of my post if you did not even address it? Everything I posted is backed up with many articles if you bother to google it. Are you defending the very industries that have screwed us over? Show me where I "cherry picked" instead of using your own propaganda driven talking points. You totally missed the point...the article is about the industires that are motivated for their own self-serving purpose to distort accurate info and those are the very articles you are stating that should be taken serioulsy. You go ahead and believe what you are spoon fed by the culprits and I'll make my determinatons based upon logic and responsible stewardship of the planet. Why don't you show me data that states that CO2 is not having an adverse affect on the oceans. This has already been proven, so I doubt that you will find a truthful article that says otherwise.
Your links are not fact, they are opinion writings which to be honest are extremely biased. Look at the titles themselves if you can;'t see it. It proclaims denial of climate change positions, it assumes the position that the AGW position is correct and then goes from there. Its entire purpose is to argue the credibility of any claim that might disagree with the AGW position by attempting to link it to a campaign of "climate change denial!"
The bold I listed was of question you asked me which required me to make assumptions about the assumptions of your articles position, assumptions about issues you have not properly supported.
You operate in the "political" realm because everything you discuss is irrelevant to the actual science. None of it matters when we look at the data. Who did this or what, who represents, paid for this or that is irrelevant when you look at the data. The data speaks for itself.
Also, you "ignored" Ferd's response to your claims:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd"
Let’s just start with the premise here
Oil Company scientists in 1995 stated that human-induced climate change was undeniable.
Down here in the South we call that a LIE and by LIE I am not talking about a highway someplace in New York….
Why you ask? Well let’s discuss shall we?
Clearly warming was occurring in 1995 however conventional wisdom at the time was that the Middle Ages experienced a period of warming that was both longer and warmer than the late 20th century. Some scientists were suggesting that Human action might be the culprit, but there was certainly no way to suggest that there was a material difference between the late 20th century warming and the Medieval Warming Period.
In fact until 1998, IPCC was still using a graph that showed the MWP and the Little Ice Age. Enter Michael Mann et all 1998 (MBH98).
It was this seminal work that created a new graph that flat lined the temperature record for both the MWP and the LIA.
It is impossible to state that in 1995 that these scientists were stating that human induced climate change was undeniable. Further the term “Climate Change” is a far later term. At that point we called it Global Warming. Or Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Find something that doesn’t start with a lie for a premise and you might get folks who aren’t drinking your coolaid to listen.
You have "ignored" his responses and mine in other threads each time we provide evidence that shows your position to be lacking. Each time we discuss the science of the issue, you respond (if you don't ignore it completely) with an emotional assumptive based counter questioning everything but the actual data used.
You operate from emotionally based politics because it allows you to easily avoid dealing with the facts of the issue.
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.
