^the only problem with his strategy is that he's exaggerating many theories that have no scientific merit.

[Edited on March 6, 2007 at 11:40 PM. Reason : k]

3/6/2007 11:39:53 PM

He did it, through exagerration and convenient falsities, to raise awareness about something that may not be a problem? Whats the point of that besides money?

3/6/2007 11:42:17 PM

Quote :

"-says that the poles are heating up. However, they're getting colder and the ice is getting thicker"

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/292721_arcticwarming17.html

Quote :

"-states that increased CO2 causing warming. However, many notable scientists disagree."

Any many more agree. What's your point?

3/6/2007 11:42:38 PM

The point should be that the consensus isnt as reliable as many purport it to be

If many agree and many disagree it doesnt sound like the written-in-stone fact that many claim

[Edited on March 6, 2007 at 11:44 PM. Reason : .]

3/6/2007 11:44:25 PM

^^while that article does counter what I said, it hardly lends one to believe there is a consensus on anything related to global warming.

Quote :

"i think the funding of research should always be looked at."

Very true. Very convenient that you don't look at the motive behind alarmists scientists pumping out studies enforcing global warming. I suppose they're unbiased in their want for grants from the billions of dollars given out from the US gov't.

[Edited on March 6, 2007 at 11:47 PM. Reason : k]

3/6/2007 11:44:25 PM

Quote :

"I suppose they're unbiased in their want for grants from the billions of dollars given out from the US gov't."

Is t3h g0v really in favor of studies that support the idea of human-caused global warming?

3/6/2007 11:48:42 PM

Quote :

"I suppose they're unbiased in their want for grants from the billions of dollars given out from the US gov't."

And you aren't critical of the billions oil and power companies have at stake? As long as they can continue to pollute without any cost or fee born by them, why shouldn't they fight any effort to place a market valuation on a public commodity. Ever heard of "tragedy of the commons"? I suppose the oil and coal industry is throwing tons of money to discredit and suppress the global warming movement because they really have concern for science, the public well being and environmental sustainability.

Bullshit. Global warming is not only an environmental movement. Its a social, economic and environmental justice movement. It threatens current political hegemony and corporate access to decision makers. The social implications are very threatening to corporate interests, as threatening as true functioning democracy.


[Edited on March 6, 2007 at 11:58 PM. Reason : )]

3/6/2007 11:51:58 PM

^^the point is if we're not causing global warming, then why would we need to research it

Quote :

"I suppose the oil and coal industry is throwing tons of money to discredit and suppress the global warming movement because they really have concern for science, the public well being and environmental sustainability."

the oil and coal industry is throwing tons of money to discredit the global warming movement, huh? ok salisburyboy

Quote :

"The social implications are very threatening to corporate interests"

And the corporate gains to be made by the green companies wouldnt lead you to believe that they have a financial stake in pushing forward the global warming movement, regardless of scientific basis?

[Edited on March 7, 2007 at 12:11 AM. Reason : .]

3/7/2007 12:08:52 AM

Quote :

"the point is if we're not causing global warming, then why would we need to research it"

You'd have to research the subject to find out whether we're causing it. And it's still pretty interesting. Scientists study all sorts of other things that aren't political issues or obviously useful.

To argue that g0v funding makes research biased, you have to demonstrate the g0v wants a certain result.

[Edited on March 7, 2007 at 12:12 AM. Reason : d]

3/7/2007 12:12:13 AM

But if its reported to be a serious problem then they will spend a lot of research on it...if some of the results say it might not be a problem they wouldnt have the immediate need to research it fully

they would still research it im not denying that...but saying the only reason people are skeptical of anthro global warming is for corporate oil interests while ignoring the corporate interests that would be gained by the supporters of anthro global warming is just ignorant

[Edited on March 7, 2007 at 12:20 AM. Reason : .]

3/7/2007 12:15:50 AM

In today's climate, at least, I would think results against global warming would be even more interesting.

Anyways, do you have any evidence that scientists funded by g0v grants doctor studies in favor of human-caused global warming to get more cash?

3/7/2007 12:21:10 AM

^Not if they are peer reviewed.

3/7/2007 12:24:07 AM

no but theres also no evidence that oil companies have studies doctored to favor their business...if there is a large human caused problem that needs to be addressed, oil companies want to know so they can keep an income sure...but they would want to be involved in whatever new energy sources become the standard...its not like their "corporate greed" would lead them to some kind of maniacal runaway journey where the earth is a 150 degree oceanic planet and they are swimming in their insulated money bins

3/7/2007 12:27:39 AM

Quote :

"no but theres also no evidence that oil companies have studies doctored to favor their business"

there isn't?

3/7/2007 12:38:05 AM

not that i know of

if you'd like to present some evidence then be my guest

3/7/2007 12:41:13 AM

You mean besides that they are known major donors to the American Enterprise Institute and Competitive Enterprise Institute, who regularly present at Congressional hearings and pay people with academic credentials to say theres no such thing as global warming?

The same strategy used in the past to say there is no definitive link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer?

[Edited on March 7, 2007 at 1:40 AM. Reason : .]

3/7/2007 1:18:26 AM

if you'd like to present some evidence then be my guest

that would of course include a credible source

3/7/2007 2:09:30 AM

"In February 2007, The Guardian reported that AEI was offering scientists and economists $10,000 each, "to undermine a major climate change report" from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). AEI asked for "articles that emphasise the shortcomings" of the IPCC report, which "is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science." AEI visiting scholar Kenneth Green made the $10,000 offer "to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere," in a letter describing the IPCC as "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent." [6]

The Guardian reported further that AEI "has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil, and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees," added The Guardian. [7] "

I hate to use "sourcewatch" but the sources are cited and the original news stories are compiled for review.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Enterprise_Institute

3/7/2007 2:29:30 AM

if you'd like to present some evidence then be my guest

3/7/2007 9:58:41 AM

^^Oh I get it, those scientists should work for free.

Its ridiculous and naive to think that green companies aren't hard at working lobbying the gov't for pointless regulations that do little if nothing to offset CO2 emissions, and instead just line their pockets with our money.

And lets not forget that the famous "hockey stick" temperature chart, shown by Gore, the UN's IPCC, and various other alarmists is doctored to eliminate the last warming period as well as little ice age.

3/7/2007 1:08:11 PM

Quote :

"^^Oh I get it, those scientists should work for free."

No, he's probably saying they shouldn't be explicitly asked to come to certain conclusion.

3/7/2007 1:16:00 PM

and they're not explicitly asked to come to a certain conclusion

3/7/2007 1:33:49 PM

In the example, scientists were being to asked to oppose the United Nations climate change report...

That at least rules out a few things.

3/7/2007 1:55:32 PM

emphasize the shortcomings != oppose the UN climate report

3/7/2007 1:56:35 PM

"to undermine a major climate change report"

3/7/2007 2:05:31 PM

When you are writing a paper, do you proof read rough drafts for errors, or do you just turn them in because you're "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent"?

3/7/2007 2:09:25 PM

The latter.

If I see red ink on the paper, I shoot the prof.

[Edited on March 7, 2007 at 2:13 PM. Reason : shoot the prof!]

3/7/2007 2:12:22 PM

Quote :

"And lets not forget that the famous "hockey stick" temperature chart, shown by Gore, the UN's IPCC, and various other alarmists is doctored to eliminate the last warming period as well as little ice age."

have we discussed this in TSB? If not someone should start a thread, I'd be interested.

3/7/2007 9:45:49 PM

yes. it was discussed ad nauseam in the previous inconvenient truth thread.

3/7/2007 10:19:26 PM

Quote :

"Hes basically saying that its not a super intuitive process, and had to focus heavily on establishing credibility with his audience on the validity of the problem so that they would be receptive to the solution."

So, basically, he lied in order to make people want to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Got it.

Oh, and TKE-Teg, isn't the reason that CO2 levels were so high during that cold period because there was relatively little vegetation and algae on earth at the time, due to the cold weather and iced over seas? One of the prevailing "theories," IIRC, is that this high level of CO2 caused the earth to heat up, thus ending the "snowball earth."

3/7/2007 10:47:03 PM

Quote :

"basically, he lied in order to make people want to solve a problem that doesn't exist"

even though that may or may not be true...the fact that all the blind anthro-GW proponents dont even consider that he may have his own political or economic motives is the thing that most upsets me...that the supposed future of the country isnt skeptical of something so obviously uncertain

3/8/2007 1:31:30 AM

Quote :

"So, basically, he lied in order to make people want to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Got it."

What makes you think he doesn't that least "believe" in global warming? Tons of people, including plenty of top scientists, consider it serious problem. Europeans, for example, don't seem to have the same doubts about it we Americans do. Just listen BBC stories on the subject.

3/8/2007 1:43:46 AM

I wonder if people pro-Kyoto realize that even if we BANNED gasoline use today, we'd still fall short of meeting the Protocol? I'm sure that wouldn't cause us economic ruin

3/8/2007 1:57:41 AM

Quote :

"Tons of people, including plenty of top scientists, consider it serious problem"

Of course...and it very may well be a serious problem...but how come anyone who says it MIGHT not be a serious problem is immediatley labelled a nutjob with Exxon interests? Doesnt something like that make all the investigative Soap Box posters even SOMEWHAT skeptical that a science with so much supposed consensus is so quick to criticize the slightest skeptics with uncertainties about human-induced global warming if they happen to somewhat contradict the existing conclusions?

3/8/2007 1:57:44 AM

Quote :

"but how come anyone who says it MIGHT not be a serious problem is immediatley labelled a nutjob with Exxon interests?"

They shouldn't be. I'm sure they're are some legit scientists who reject the majority view on global warming.

But suggesting Gore is consciously cynical about the whole thing strikes me as very unlikely.

3/8/2007 2:06:07 AM

Quote :

"Just listen BBC stories on the subject."

You should watch BBC 1 Thursday night then, b/c they're airing a problem that uncovers major flaws in the whole "man causes global warming" theory.

3/8/2007 2:08:59 AM

^^I think Gore is mostly just hypocritical than cynical but plenty of famous people in positions of authority are on some "do what i say not what i do" shit...since I think human induced catastrophic global warming isnt conclusive yet Gore is saying it is, I think he IS being hypocritical by living such a lavish lifestyle...not that rich people shouldnt enjoy their wealth, but practice what you preach to some extent

[Edited on March 8, 2007 at 2:11 AM. Reason : .]

3/8/2007 2:10:40 AM

Quote :

"You should watch BBC 1 Thursday night then, b/c they're airing a problem that uncovers major flaws in the whole "man causes global warming" theory."

They're talking about climate change and alternative power sources on the BBC right now.

Quote :

"I think he IS being hypocritical by living such a lavish lifestyle..."

That doesn't mean he thinks he's lying, though. Being hypocritical generally goes along with belief.

3/8/2007 2:13:33 AM

im off to bed for the night, will certainly continue at a later date

thank you for the respectful dialoge

3/8/2007 2:16:08 AM

Quote :

"What makes you think he doesn't that least "believe" in global warming?"

So, as long as you believe in something, it's OK to lie to people about the facts in order to get them to agree with you? got it!

3/8/2007 6:53:16 PM

Christianity does it all the time. Oh wait, there were dinosaurs on the ark, right?

3/8/2007 11:06:24 PM

so that makes it ok

3/8/2007 11:36:25 PM

i mean, Hitler killed Jews, so we can do it too, right?

3/8/2007 11:51:48 PM

Quote :

"So, as long as you believe in something, it's OK to lie to people about the facts in order to get them to agree with you? got it! "

It's never stopped politicians before, and will not for the foreseeable future.

[Edited on March 9, 2007 at 1:28 AM. Reason : bush has been the worst offender though]

3/9/2007 1:28:24 AM

so that makes it ok

3/9/2007 11:22:35 AM

No, but what determines when people complain about it? We certainly to complain about EVERY instance of it, and people will defend certain instances of it too.

3/9/2007 11:47:38 AM

so you are defending gore using lies to scare people into believing something that may be completely false?

3/9/2007 12:41:26 PM

Bjørn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, has criticized Al Gore's movie as being misleading. Lomborg has the following quotation posted on his Web site:

Quote :

"In The Skeptical Environmentalist Bjørn Lomborg challenges widely held beliefs that the global environment is progressively getting worse. Using statistical information from internationally recognized research institutes, Lomborg systematically examines a range of major environmental issues and documents that the global environment has actually improved. He supports his argument with over 2900 footnotes, allowing discerning readers to check his sources [emphasis added]. Lomborg criticizes the way many environmental organizations make selective and misleading use of scientific data to influence decisions about the allocation of limited resources. The Skeptical Environmentalist is a useful corrective to the more alarmist accounts favored by green activists and the media."

The following is just part of Lomborg's CV:

Quote :

"Bjørn Lomborg, born January 6 1965. M.A. in political science (Cand.scient.pol.) 1991. Ph.D. at the Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen. 1994. Assistant professor at the Department of Political Science, University of Aarhus, 1994-1996. Associate professor same place, 1997-2005. Director of Denmark's national Environmental Assessment Institute February 2002-July 2004. Organizer of the Copenhagen Consensus May 2004, prioritizing the best opportunities to the world's big challenges. Adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School 2005-. Director for the Copenhagen Consensus Center 2006-. Bjørn Lomborg was named one of the 100 globally most influential people by Time magazine in April 2004. Foreign Policy and Prospect Magazine had him listed as the world’s 14th most influential intellectual in October 2005."

http://www.lomborg.com/

3/22/2007 12:22:10 PM

eh. that guy is just a politician. what does he know about the climate?

3/22/2007 11:27:53 PM

Sixth-graders can't even be convinced anymore that humans cause global warming!

Quote :

"Only one parent questioned Poppe's decision to hold a global warming debate. That mother expected him to present Al Gore's global warming movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' as indisputable facts, Poppe said. After he explained his neutrality in the classroom, the mom allowed her child to participate in the debate, he said. 'You don’t understand someone's position until you can argue it to their satisfaction,' Poppe said, quoting a famous physicist. 'I don’t believe in Darwinism either, but I can argue it as well as any Darwinist.'"

http://www.longmontfyi.com/Local-Story.asp?ID=15357

3/24/2007 1:36:08 AM