Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/23/07 07:28 PM, Thread-Killer wrote: For the most part, scientific studies only the reflect the opinion of those that paid for the research. A lot of researchers are afraid to lose grant money, which motivates them to keep silent.

Scientists don't get into the occupation to get rich. The argument that all (or "most") scientific study is flawed because money is involved isn't rational.

At 11/23/07 09:53 PM, TheMason wrote: I'll get right on it and start taking Al Gore seriously when his family stops consuming the same amount of energy as 10 average American families. Once he starts practicing what he preaches...

Why would another person's energy consumption influence yours?

At 11/23/07 09:58 PM, RedSkunk wrote:

At 11/23/07 07:28 PM, Thread-Killer wrote:

Scientists don't get into the occupation to get rich. The argument that all (or "most") scientific study is flawed because money is involved isn't rational.

With all due respect Skunk (BTW, glad to see you back on NG), many of my ex-wife's co-workers got into science to make above average livings...

However, when ppl like Richard Lindzen (who happens to be a professor of meteorology at MIT) express their doubts, he is decried as being in the pay of the oil industry...

Grant money is what keeps food on the table of academics. To not be willing to analyze this ignores reality and is...irrational. :)

At 11/23/07 10:00 PM, RedSkunk wrote: Why would another person's energy consumption influence yours?

Indeed, Tuquoque, while understandable, is not a valid argument. Although he may not be arguing that angle. I think what he's actually saying is that if Al Gore's concerns are valid, one would think that he would indeed be practicing what he preaches. And that would be an effective point.

At 11/23/07 10:00 PM, RedSkunk wrote:

At 11/23/07 09:53 PM, TheMason wrote: I'll get right on it and start taking Al Gore seriously when his family stops consuming the same amount of energy as 10 average American families. Once he starts practicing what he preaches...

Why would another person's energy consumption influence yours?

Actually it doesn't. I use CF bulbs in my apartment and do not really drive much. I do this because I grew up in the country and have a strong conservationist ethic. Not to mention the savings I've seen in my utility bill.

My point is, I think it's telling that the mouthpiece of the GW movement (and it is a political movement) would rather the average person shoulder the burden than have his family lead the way. I mean if his family residence consumes 10x the average family residence...then obviously he doesn't believe in what he's preaching.

At 11/23/07 10:06 PM, TheMason wrote: With all due respect Skunk (BTW, glad to see you back on NG), many of my ex-wife's co-workers got into science to make above average livings...

However, when ppl like Richard Lindzen (who happens to be a professor of meteorology at MIT) express their doubts, he is decried as being in the pay of the oil industry...

Grant money is what keeps food on the table of academics. To not be willing to analyze this ignores reality and is...irrational. :)

Most academics I know are well-fed. Anyways, I'll accept that everyone needs to be paid. What I'm questioning is the assumption that the majority of research on this particular subject is tainted because of grant funding.

Is the bulk of climate change research funded by those who benefit from climate change? Who might that be? The proof of burden lays on the claimee.

.
From the About page on the IPCC website.

The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

The IPCC is the largest and foremost authority on climate change. They process the information coming from the world scientific body. The IPCC is a "scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)."

I would like to know how the UNEP and the WMO have a partisan stake in the (non)issue of climate change?

At 11/23/07 10:12 PM, TheMason wrote: My point is, I think it's telling that the mouthpiece of the GW movement (and it is a political movement) would rather the average person shoulder the burden than have his family lead the way. I mean if his family residence consumes 10x the average family residence...then obviously he doesn't believe in what he's preaching.

Red herring. For the point of discussion, it's irrelevant what Gore believes.

At 11/23/07 10:19 PM, RedSkunk wrote: Is the bulk of climate change research funded by those who benefit from climate change? Who might that be? The proof of burden lays on the claimee.

Major agencies in the United States, hitherto closely involved with traditional approaches to national security, have appropriated the issue of climate change to support existing efforts. Notable among those agencies are NASA, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Energy. The cold war helped spawn a large body of policy experts and diplomats specializing in issues such as disarmament and alliance negotiations. In addition, since the Yom Kippur War, energy has become a major component of national security with the concomitant creation of a large cadre of energy experts. Many of those individuals see in the global change issue an area in which to continue applying their skills. Many scientists also feel that national security concerns formed the foundation for the U.S. government's generous support of science. As the urgency of national security, traditionally defined, diminishes, there is a common feeling that a substitute foundation must be established. "Saving the planet'' has the right sort of sound to it. Fundraising has become central to environmental advocates' activities, and the message underlying some of their fundraising seems to be "pay us or you'll fry.''

A parochial issue is the danger to the science of climatology. As far as I can tell, there has actually been reduced funding for existing climate research. That may seem paradoxical, but, at least in the United States, the vastly increased number of scientists and others involving themselves in climate as well as the gigantic programs attaching themselves to climate have substantially outstripped the increases in funding. Perhaps more important are the pressures being brought to bear on scientists to get the "right'' results. Such pressures are inevitable, given how far out on a limb much of the scientific community has gone. The situation is compounded by the fact that some of the strongest proponents of "global warming'' in Congress are also among the major supporters of science (Sen. Gore is notable among those).

Source

All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.

And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest.

Source 2

This last one is telling. When a prof at MIT and his collegues at NASA can't even get an article reviewed in a scientific journal...something is going on....

We have a saying in Academia: publish or perish. If a scientist at a University cannot get published according to a contractual schedule then they are denied tenure which means they are out of a job (unless they are already tenured).

At 11/23/07 10:12 PM, TheMason wrote: My point is, I think it's telling that the mouthpiece of the GW movement (and it is a political movement) would rather the average person shoulder the burden than have his family lead the way. I mean if his family residence consumes 10x the average family residence...then obviously he doesn't believe in what he's preaching.

Red herring. For the point of discussion, it's irrelevant what Gore believes.

Gore is relevant. He is a mouthpiece for the movement, becoming synonomous with GW. Furthermore, as a Senator he dealt with grant money and allocating money for climate change research. As VP he was the US delegate to the Kyoto Summit. I can see where his beliefs (which contrast with his actions) can be inconvienent, but they are anything BUT irrelevant and a red herring.

At 11/23/07 10:19 PM, RedSkunk wrote:

At 11/23/07 10:06 PM, TheMason wrote:

I would like to know how the UNEP and the WMO have a partisan stake in the (non)issue of climate change?

Your mistake here is assuming that I'm coming at this from a partisan perspective. I don't think the IPCC has a partisan stake, but they do have a bureaucratic stake in maintaining funding from both public and private funding.

Their professional reputations are also at stake. The appearance of a consensus can do much to cover up the fact that environmental scientists have a track record of failure when it comes to predicting future weather/geological patterns.

At 11/23/07 10:55 PM, TheMason wrote: CATO quote

I must say, that article seems outdated when it talks about a "diminishing importance" on national security. How have NASA, DoE, & DOD "appropriated" climate change research? Has this changed at all in the past fifteen years since that article was written? Richard Lindzen qualifies the second paragraph you quoted with a "as far as I can tell." What are Lindzen's qualifications for determining whether funding has increased or decreased? And his claim about the number of scientists "dedicated" to studying climate change? Is this still applicable?

These links are talking about the politicization of climate change, not of the research. What articles have been summarily dismissed at Science and Nature? How often is "common"? You found two op-eds with the same argument, but not a lot of insight.

All of which starkly contrasts to the silence .........anything BUT irrelevant and a red herring.

red herring - "A red herring is a metaphor for a diversion or distraction from an original objective"

The discussion is climate change, not your opinions about Al Gore.

At 11/23/07 09:53 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 11/23/07 09:47 PM, Elfer wrote: - Walk and bike more
- Buy locally grown food
- Switch off the lights and your computer when you're not usin' em.

I'll get right on it and start taking Al Gore seriously when his family stops consuming the same amount of energy as 10 average American families. Once he starts practicing what he preaches...

I didn't get these ideas from Al Gore. I got them from common sense. Just because Gore is a fuck-up doesn't mean you have an excuse.

At 11/23/07 11:01 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 11/23/07 10:19 PM, RedSkunk wrote:

At 11/23/07 10:06 PM, TheMason wrote:

I would like to know how the UNEP and the WMO have a partisan stake in the (non)issue of climate change?

Your mistake here is assuming that I'm coming at this from a partisan perspective. I don't think the IPCC has a partisan stake, but they do have a bureaucratic stake in maintaining funding from both public and private funding.

Their professional reputations are also at stake. The appearance of a consensus can do much to cover up the fact that environmental scientists have a track record of failure when it comes to predicting future weather/geological patterns.

I was using partisan in the strictest sense of the word. The IPCC studies the literature, funding is irrelevant because they are not out to prove or disprove. FWIW, the IPCC is a completely public body, funded mainly by governmental bodies as well as the WMO and UN.

Now you're claiming that coming to a scientific consensus is a matter of reputation?

At 11/23/07 11:14 PM, RedSkunk wrote:

At 11/23/07 10:55 PM, TheMason wrote: CATO quote

I must say, that article seems outdated when it talks about a "diminishing importance" on national security. How have NASA, DoE, & DOD "appropriated" climate change research? Has this changed at all in the past fifteen years since that article was written? Richard Lindzen qualifies the second paragraph you quoted with a "as far as I can tell." What are Lindzen's qualifications for determining whether funding has increased or decreased? And his claim about the number of scientists "dedicated" to studying climate change? Is this still applicable?

In 1991 GWCC is started to leak its way into the military doctrine of the USAF and USN as a threat to national security...and guess what? We are getting $$$$ for it. Under Clinton there were substantial cuts in the defense budget because we thought we had reached the end of history and we did not need a strong military. So the DoD started looking for new missions that became known as: MOOTW (Military Operations Other Than War). GWCC became one of these new missions.

Same thing was happening with NASA. With no more planned moon missions, an obsolete shuttle with not plans to replace it, many in Washington started looking at it to cut. GWCC provides a basis/rationale/mission to continue funding. This is the nature of bureaucracy...it will always adapt to survive even when its initial reason for existance is gone.

Finally, Lindzens qualifications are he is a professor and climatologist. The academic community is quite small and gossipy, people know what other people are researching and what articles are submitted to journals. In fact he is a prof at one our most prestigious Universities. What this means is when someone from Harvard, Yale or MIT submits a paper to an academic/scholarly journal often it is published without peer review.

These links are talking about the politicization of climate change, not of the research. What articles have been summarily dismissed at Science and Nature? How often is "common"? You found two op-eds with the same argument, but not a lot of insight.

They are filled with insight if you're familiar with academic funding and career paths.

Also, it cuts straight to the research. Public funds means politics, which is the competition for distribution of tax payer money. A scientist has to prove his research is important to carry it out to either a corporate employer or academic institution, and the work has to be publishable. If the impact of man on CC is negligable then the research dollars will become limited.

Furthermore, if (as Lindzen is arguing) journals are editing based upon whether or not research findings conform to scientific consensus this is not science. This one thing casts doubt upon the reliability of the entire body of research including the IPCC.

All of which starkly contrasts to the silence .........anything BUT irrelevant and a red herring.

red herring - "A red herring is a metaphor for a diversion or distraction from an original objective"

Skunk, I know what a red herring is.

The discussion is climate change, not your opinions about Al Gore.

But Al Gore is a central figure in both the research and politicization of GW and CC. He had his hands on the purse strings and in his life after politics he is campaigning to raise awareness. So you cannot seperate Al Gore from the discussion especially when the topic has in its title: "GW is filled with lies".

That he lives a life contrary to what he preaches is an indication that the "truth" or science about GWCC is overexaggerated when it is released to the public.

My opinion of Al Gore is that he honestly believes that he's doing the right thing, however he's a little NeoCon about it in that he is overexaggerating the threat in order to mobilize public opinion. In some ways I wish he had won (and yes he did lose) in 2000.

At 11/23/07 11:23 PM, RedSkunk wrote:

At 11/23/07 11:01 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 11/23/07 10:19 PM, RedSkunk wrote:

At 11/23/07 10:06 PM, TheMason wrote:

I was using partisan in the strictest sense of the word. The IPCC studies the literature, funding is irrelevant because they are not out to prove or disprove. FWIW, the IPCC is a completely public body, funded mainly by governmental bodies as well as the WMO and UN.

Funding is NEVER irrelevant. Furthermore, it does not matter that is funded through public or private means. Either one can lead to a distortion of the science based on the particular interests of whoever is funding them.

Secondly, if the journals are not publishing research that contra-indicates GWCC then the articles the IPCC is including in their "consensus" is inheriently flawed and skewed. The IPCC findings are not to be trusted if Lindzen's allegation is correct.

Now you're claiming that coming to a scientific consensus is a matter of reputation?

YES!!!! The academic/sholarly world is as cutthroat as any boardroom. A particular department may be a happy little family of profs and grad students; but everyone is out to get their research published in the top journals.

We forget that scientists are still human; we want to think of them as Vulcans who are free from pride, ego, greed and other basic human motivations. But they are not. Asking certain questions and following certain theories that are taboo by the mainstream of academic thought (whether it is climatology or political science) can lead to an early end to a promising but untenured academic career.

At 11/23/07 11:17 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 11/23/07 09:53 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 11/23/07 09:47 PM, Elfer wrote:

I didn't get these ideas from Al Gore. I got them from common sense.

Ditto, my point is there are other reasons to do these things (which I do) than the NeoConish scare tactists of hypocritical Environmentalists such as Al Gore.

lol, cellaurose, lol your a tool and thats kind of well, as the others did for me, shown. you keep thinking its one big lie, lol have fun with that.

At 11/24/07 07:11 PM, SEcrew wrote: lol, cellaurose, lol your a tool and thats kind of well, as the others did for me, shown.

How?

Nobody has shown anything other than their ability to resort to ad hominem as their only possible tactic in an argument they know they can't contribute any facts to. Because well, the facts are against them.

you keep thinking its one big lie, lol have fun with that.

Um actually I have shown that there's a pretty good evidence that it's a lie or a lapse of judgment to suggest that we're causing it.

how do YOU know?

there arent rebuttles to the rebuttles of the rebuttle

According to this newspaper i bought from a hobo, david suzuki says global warming is real.

At 11/24/07 01:16 PM, TheMason wrote: Ditto, my point is there are other reasons to do these things (which I do) than the NeoConish scare tactists of hypocritical Environmentalists such as Al Gore.

Well yeah. I know. That's what I've been saying this whole topic.

If there was some sort of enforceable way to change the lifestyle of americans without insighting outrage at loss of rights than global warming [Whether or not you beleive global warming is caused by people is irrelevant, if it is caused by people, taking the right steps would solve the problem, if it wasn't, unless the steps taken are extreme, we would only be put under the illusion that global warming is being solved and we would be able to go about our lives free of stress untill somone else comes up with another apocalyptic theory as to why lifestyle overhauls are necessary] wouldn't be the only problem solved, drunk driving, gang violence, and a a few other issues would be solved, whoever would be leader at the time would be a hero

The only problem with riding a bike is location. most people who have carriers arn't close enough to they're work building or location to ride a bike there, and if they did, it would mean that they would have to wake up all the earlier. If a person had to ride a bike from long island to new york city they would probably have to wake up a few hours earlier. Except i don't think that electric trains produce carbon emissions so that's not a problem.

The argument that funding is political can be applied to virtually any instance where money exchanges hands. I'll concede it plays a role. I regret getting into such a fruitless argument. The question is how much is this influencing the research, ie. how cynical are we. I don't see much point in continuing since we've come to a fundamental difference in opinion.

I believe scientific research can be relied on. And the scientific consensus is that climate change is occurring and man has made an impact. Despite the fact that articles have been denied in one publication on a supposedly political basis, or that certain professors wrote op-eds, or that the DoD or NASA have funded research, or if Gore is hypocritical.

Good work taking the unarguable position.

At 11/24/07 11:20 PM, RedSkunk wrote: Good work taking the unarguable position.

I could say the same for you. :)

For the record, I'm not saying science is completely corrupted and thus is totally unreliable. However, the business side (Al Gore and popular scientific journals) and bureaucratic side (IPCC) have to be questioned.

However, it is subject to all the same human frailties that other institutions are subject to...just like religion. Always question authority.

Goble warming is a lie there is nothing true
about this i cant belive this is true?

At 11/23/07 02:12 AM, shatterspike1 wrote: Sarcasm doesn't exactly travel well across the internet.

its a reasonable mistake, i mean whenever i quote flying spaghetti monster i usually do it in serious tones.

oh and /sarcasm

At 11/25/07 05:04 AM, fahrenheit wrote:

At 11/23/07 02:12 AM, shatterspike1 wrote:

its a reasonable mistake, i mean whenever i quote flying spaghetti monster i usually do it in serious tones.

Of course you should use only serious tones! The Great and Magnaniomous Flying Spaghetting Monster in the Sky should be treated with the upmost deference since he is so beneficent and merciful and will some day smite the unbelievers making the world safe for democracy, puppies, Monsterians and Christians!

I'm reading this thread and I'm starting to agree more and more with cellardoor ( mostly on the fact that most of you guys are tools, but that's not new ).

Indeed, if China continues to ignore everyone on earth and just pollutes as much as they possibly can, then there is no point in trying to massively cut our own use of oil. Luckily for us, there is a social revolution going on in China and hopefully the people will do something about their government before it's too late. Probably a good 1% chance of that happening.

People don't realize they they have some power to influence this by not buying shit from China. If we're vocal about it and keep supporting countries we like by buying shit that's made in them, we'll win.

At 11/26/07 06:27 PM, poxpower wrote: I'm reading this thread and I'm starting to agree more and more with cellardoor ( mostly on the fact that most of you guys are tools, but that's not new ).

Love.

Indeed, if China continues to ignore everyone on earth and just pollutes as much as they possibly can, then there is no point in trying to massively cut our own use of oil.

Yes, now spread this logic to your countrymen.

Luckily for us, there is a social revolution going on in China and hopefully the people will do something about their government before it's too late.

That's incredibly optimistic. There isn't a social revolution really because it hasn't been met by a parallel revolution in the government in China.

Their government has so much power, and so many troops to squash rebellion... it's just highly unlikely anything substantial will happen. It will just be Tienanmen Square Massacre redux X100 if the people rise up.

Probably a good 1% chance of that happening.

I'd say less than that. Their government just has too much power. Any leaders of an opposition movement would be executed, and any demonstrations would be crushed. That's how China rolls.

People don't realize they they have some power to influence this by not buying shit from China. If we're vocal about it and keep supporting countries we like by buying shit that's made in them, we'll win.

The funny thing about the global warming hawks is that they don't address China in that area either. Everyone with any knowledge of global economics knows that the Kyoto protocol and other global warming measures will be irrelevant because countries that adhere to it will just export their manufacturing to countries like China, more so than they already have. Carbon emissions won't really be reduced, they'll just be emitted in another part of the world.

At 11/21/07 08:42 PM, Hostile-Eagle wrote: Scare World to think global warming check
Elimanate bush working progress

Funny how you republicans turn into massive conspiracy theorists the second it suits your agenda, which is exactly what you accuse a minority of democrats of doing. Don't pretend to know the science, you don't.

At 11/26/07 06:44 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Yes, now spread this logic to your countrymen.

The only reason people bash the U.S. is because they know the culture and they know they're the most influencial country that doesn't speak gibberish.
Who the fuck cares about Russia? We can't speak Russian or read their stupid crazy paper with symbols and vodka.
Same with China. Try as we might to care about them and criticize, it will never reach their ears.
Don't they have their own frickin' internet now? Fucked up.

So yeah you guys are always at the center-stage and your media always makes you look like idiots who elects rich douchebags who send black kids to war for oil. Which is only 85% true.

That's incredibly optimistic. There isn't a social revolution really because it hasn't been met by a parallel revolution in the government in China.

Well the same thing happened in Quebec during the 60's, when the people basically made enormous pressure to kick the catholics out of the school and the governement. In the 50's, we were still a bunch of ignorant baby-cranking shop workers. Of course, we had the right to elect our own leaders.
Anyways, there's more and more tv and music that comes out of China and people are starting to take control of their own life. For instance, the other day I caught a documentary called "China's Sexual Revolution" which talked about how the young people in China are basically 90% like americans and they have sex with multiple partners just for the hell of it. Before that, you couldn't talk about sex and you married just to have kids.

I really don't know how this will end, if it will take a bloodbath for them to seize control and change things, or if they will grow too comfortable and let the government run things however they see fit.

The funny thing about the global warming hawks is that they don't address China in that area either.

I hear about it all the time, but there's really not a lot we can do about it. They're so many, so different and so strong, it's really up to them. If we try and pull some global coup on them, it might turn really really ugly and I'm sure that "global warming" sounds like a pretty shitty reason to start a world war at this point. But in 20-30 years when the battle for oil between the east and the west intensifies, then it might get ugly :O
There's really not a lot of good ways for this to end.

Carbon emissions won't really be reduced, they'll just be emitted in another part of the world.

Yeah again that's up to individuals to do more recycling and use less oil and whatnot. People sit on their ass and wait for the government to do some magic thing about it like suck up all the acid rain and dump it on the moon, but each and everyone of us must reduce their level of comfort until better energy technologies come out.
Or at the very least, not buy so much shit from China and wherever else. Too bad they don't write "made by children" or "last year this cost 20cents more but was made by your neighbor John who had to move into a dump because he lost his job" on the labels.

People in China all buy shit that's made in China, but I can't even name one non-food item that's made in Canada that I would buy.

Anyways so far I enjoy global warming a lot. In the last 10 years, we've been getting longer and longer summers. Fucking' sweet, there's at least a good extra month of warm-esque temperatures. Hell will freeze over before it snows for Halloween again.
HURRAY!

At 11/26/07 07:05 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 11/26/07 06:44 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Yes, now spread this logic to your countrymen.

The only reason people bash the U.S. is because they know the culture and they know they're the most influencial country that doesn't speak gibberish.

People like to scapegoat the US for more reasons than that. See, if there's a problem someone can blame on the US, they'll be more likely to emphasize that problem from the beginning. So there is incentive both to emphasize a problem that might not even be a problem without being objective, and also to blame the supposed problem on someone else.

If there were theories about a world-wide catastrophe and say... France was to blame, people would be both less likely to believe it's a problem, and less likely to blame France for it as well.

People are more likely to believe in global warming, and more likely to believe America is causing it or is unwilling to due their part... just because it's America. The parties involve sway what conclusion people will come to based on their preconceived bias and predetermined desire to distort things for a political purpose.

So yeah you guys are always at the center-stage and your media always makes you look like idiots who elects rich douchebags who send black kids to war for oil. Which is only 85% true.

Actually it's about 30% true. But that 30% of truth is also true in most other countries, people just wouldn't know that because they pay or attention to the US than they do their own country apparently.

Rich douchebags are elected in most democracies.

Well the same thing happened in Quebec during the 60's, when the people basically made enormous pressure to kick the catholics out of the school and the governement.

Yeah but that was in a democracy, under a government that wouldn't send the army to kill people for speaking up.

Anyways, there's more and more tv and music that comes out of China and people are starting to take control of their own life.

That's an economic movement due to China adopting capitalist economic polices. Once again it's not being mirrored by any parallel changes in their government which is still authoritarian.

People in China all buy shit that's made in China, but I can't even name one non-food item that's made in Canada that I would buy.

Some American cars are made in Canada, that's all I really know about. But you might not want to buy one of those.