Global warming 'past the point of no return'

[SlackDad]

Originally Posted by punky

Wow, in one post you have managed to libel thousands of research scientists that might for all you know actually agree with you.

This issue is addressed in State Of Fear. If research money comes from oil companies, then the scientist is automatically corrupt regardless of his reputation or what he actually researches/reports. However, if a scientist is funded from a leftist, pro global-warming agenda based organisation, then automatically you're above reproach, and the sun shines out of your backside.

As for using State of Fear as a basis for argument, a reviewer on Amazon sums it up:

Originally Posted by The Oysterman

I enjoyed this book as it should be read....a fictious novel. Thinking of this book as a factual piece of work citing debunking references to climate change, means that you also believe that after you fall down a crevasse in Antarctica, you can climb out and be rescued by a meteorite survey robot...yeah right.

Any book that tries to marry real world science with heroic characters should not be taken as the gospel truth. What the book should do is make you think, then go off and do a little research yourself. Having done this you may find that Mr Crichton is using aspects of science to perpetuate his own views on climate change,(humans are not responsible)and are not altogether backed-up by other science nor the scientists which he cites. He is using the very same techniques to convince, that the characters in the book use to debunk. He could be seen to be pervading the state of fear, and judging by some of the reviews I have read here he has succeeded. It was probably the graphs, stick one in a book and it becomes true. Note the hurricane graph pg 505, hurricanes per decade except for the last line which covers only 4 years but this gives the impression of declining strikes......

---------- Post added at 17:35 ---------- Previous post was at 17:31 ----------

Originally Posted by injuneer

Yes, hasn't it been proven through ice core analysis that the rate of change has increased dramatically since the industrial revolution?

I personally don't know but it certainly sounds plausible.

[punky]

Wow, The Oysterman says so, so it must be true.

However Dr Crighton provides the sources for all facts (I check random ones out and they always checked out)... Not many people do that. He cites his intrepretation but at least the evidence is there so the reader can make his own.

[SlackDad]

Originally Posted by punky

Wow, The Oysterman says so, so it must be true.

However Dr Crighton provides the sources for all facts (I check random ones out and they always checked out)... Not many people do that. He cites his intrepretation but at least the evidence is there so the reader can make his own.

Which, incidentally, is what Oysterman advises.

[hatedbythemail]

Originally Posted by punky

Wow, in one post you have managed to libel thousands of research scientists that might for all you know actually agree with you.

well actually it was the royal society which im sure you agree is a most learned body. it is they that are pointing out the highly dubious tactics being employed by exxon and co discredit the overwhelming body of peer reviewed evidence.

This issue is addressed in State Of Fear. If research money comes from oil companies, then the scientist is automatically corrupt regardless of his reputation or what he actually researches/reports. However, if a scientist is funded from a leftist, pro global-warming agenda based organisation, then automatically you're above reproach, and the sun shines out of your backside.

this issue is far too important to be left to people with commercial interests. why would a leftist organisation wish to promote climate change. what really is in it for them? why would you be 'pro-global warming'? whats their agenda? i dont see the payback for them but i do for exxon in discrediting legitimate scientific enquiry with pseudo scientific enquiry, as the royal society, not me, alleges.

[punky]

Originally Posted by hatedbythemail

well actually it was the royal society which im sure you agree is a most learned body. it is they that are pointing out the highly dubious tactics being employed by exxon and co discredit the overwhelming body of peer reviewed evidence.

There it is again. Look up the definition of stereotyping.

this issue is far too important to be left to people with commercial interests. why would a leftist organisation wish to promote climate change. what really is in it for them? why would you be 'pro-global warming'? whats their agenda? i dont see the payback for them but i do for exxon in discrediting legitimate scientific enquiry with pseudo scientific enquiry, as the royal society, not me, alleges.

If they have an agenda, they want people who'll enforce it on other people. Often, but not exclusively small ideological organisations are fronts, or coordinating with much bigger ones. Donations don't always end up where you send them.

If someone paid you for a report, would you report be any different if it was funded by the Lib Dems or Tories? If you aren't suceptible to such corruption, then why are you assuming everyone else is? Point of fact one of Noam Chomsky's early works was funded by the US military. Does that mean his work is compromised?

Basically...

Discredit the work, not the author based on where the funding comes from.

[hatedbythemail]

Originally Posted by punky

There it is again. Look up the definition of stereotyping.

ok. tell me what you think of the royal society. after all, as i said it is they that are complaining about the oil companies. is the royal society some some of green leftist revolutionary front?

If they have an agenda, they want people who'll enforce it on other people. Often, but not exclusively small ideological organisations are fronts, or coordinating with much bigger ones. Donations don't always end up where you send them.

so tell me what they might achieve in promoting the idea that co2 emissions are causing climate change?

If someone paid you for a report, would you report be any different if it was funded by the Lib Dems or Tories? If you aren't suceptible to such corruption, then why are you assuming everyone else is? Point of fact one of Noam Chomsky's early works was funded by the US military. Does that mean his work is compromised?

Basically...

Discredit the work, not the author based on where the funding comes from.

the premise is a false one unless you accept that scientists are promoting the idea of climate change for the sake of it. what could their ulterior motive be? if wind farms inc were paying maybe. like i say we are talking about the royal society which is expressing concern, in an unprecedented manner, about the actions of the oil companies which it believes is trying to undermine the pretty consensual scientific evidence about climate change.

I think it is time we sat down & really thought about how we use our resources sensibly, because it is a good idea in itself, not because it is going to have a notional effect on our climate...

The climate, sunspots, the orientation of the Earth's magnetic field etc are all subject to cycles, some of which may be predictable, some which may not?

But the amount of waste we tolerate, of all sorts, currently, is huge - and happening.

In my opinion we should worry less about the future & deal with what we can deal with, now, just because we can - but, how naive is that

[fireman328]

could a passing mod please have a look at this post, I did not send it ! My thread mentioned not having to go to Mallorca for hols

[Stuart]

Eh? You know that if you want a mod to check a particular post, you can use the Report Post function..

[punky]

Originally Posted by hatedbythemail

ok. tell me what you think of the royal society. after all, as i said it is they that are complaining about the oil companies. is the royal society some some of green leftist revolutionary front?

I don't really know a lot about the Royal Society. It doesn't really matter either, as I am talking to you, not them. I suspect though, the the RS are actually doing proper research on specific articles and coming up with informed opinions, unlike you with your if-its-funded-by-oil-companies-its-compromised line. That's nothing but stereotyping and libel.

so tell me what they might achieve in promoting the idea that co2 emissions are causing climate change?
the premise is a false one unless you accept that scientists are promoting the idea of climate change for the sake of it. what could their ulterior motive be? if wind farms inc were paying maybe. like i say we are talking about the royal society which is expressing concern, in an unprecedented manner, about the actions of the oil companies which it believes is trying to undermine the pretty consensual scientific evidence about climate change.

Motivation? How about punishing the successful (aka rich), something most people on the left like to do. People who are more successful, use more resources, which means more waste products and pollution. There are loads of others, like money, and recruits who might support other supplement agendas like animal research. It doesn't really matter what motivation, whether its to curb emissions or help oil sales. The whole point of having an agenda is that they can enforce it on others. That's the difference between an agenda and an opinion. An agenda means you have some objective to be achieved. People on all sides of the political spectrum can have an agenda, not just oil companies.

Anyway, since you're ignoring half of what I say, and twisting the other half out of context, I don't suppose this discussion will go anywhere.

Although, can you justfy inpuning the reputation of thousands of scientists without any research or knowlege of their reports? If I was one of the aforementioned scientists, id be quite disgusted at your remark. Don't suppose you are going to throw out your Noam Chomsky books are you?

[Tezcatlipoca]

Info on the Royal Society:

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Society


Last year, ahead of the G8 summit, the Royal Society & the science academies of the other G8 nations (plus also those of Brazil, China & India) published a statement saying that the scientific evidence on climate change is clear & that the G8 nations needed to take action.

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?id=3226

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/document.asp?latest=1&id=3222



In the Royal Society's letter to Exxon, they say that these groups which have received funding from Exxon have "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence". They also criticise Exxon's own public take on climate science, & say that Exxon's statements about climate science "are not consistent with the scientific literature" & are "misrepresentations".



The following is from an article by George Monbiot. He is, of course, going to be biased, as he is an environmentalist, but it is still interesting reading:

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/cl...875762,00.html

Originally Posted by George Monbiot

The website www.Exxonsecrets.org, using data found in the company's official documents, lists 124 organisations that have taken money from the company or work closely with those that have. These organisations take a consistent line on climate change: that the science is contradictory, the scientists are split, environmentalists are charlatans, liars or lunatics, and if governments took action to prevent global warming, they would be endangering the global economy for no good reason. The findings these organisations dislike are labelled "junk science". The findings they welcome are labelled "sound science".

(snip)

By funding a large number of organisations, Exxon helps to create the impression that doubt about climate change is widespread. For those who do not understand that scientific findings cannot be trusted if they have not appeared in peer-reviewed journals, the names of these institutes help to suggest that serious researchers are challenging the consensus.

This is not to claim that all the science these groups champion is bogus. On the whole, they use selection, not invention. They will find one contradictory study - such as the discovery of tropospheric cooling, which, in a garbled form, has been used by Peter Hitchens in the Mail on Sunday - and promote it relentlessly. They will continue to do so long after it has been disproved by further work. So, for example, John Christy, the author of the troposphere paper, admitted in August 2005 that his figures were incorrect, yet his initial findings are still being circulated and championed by many of these groups, as a quick internet search will show you.

(snip)

[Xaccers]

From what they were saying on the radio yesterday, they are objecting to the oil companies supporting dodgy science and lobby groups, rather than opposing viewpoints from good science.

[hatedbythemail]

Originally Posted by punky

I don't really know a lot about the Royal Society. It doesn't really matter either, as I am talking to you, not them. I suspect though, the the RS are actually doing proper research on specific articles and coming up with informed opinions, unlike you with your if-its-funded-by-oil-companies-its-compromised line. That's nothing but stereotyping and libel.

attack me all you want but all ive done is put forward the royal society's view. now if you want to attack them for its-funded-by-oil line then you'd better provide a more informed argument yourself.

for the record i am not, have never been and never intend to join the royal society, not that theyd have me.

Motivation? How about punishing the successful (aka rich), something most people on the left like to do. People who are more successful, use more resources, which means more waste products and pollution. There are loads of others, like money, and recruits who might support other supplement agendas like animal research. It doesn't really matter what motivation, whether its to curb emissions or help oil sales. The whole point of having an agenda is that they can enforce it on others. That's the difference between an agenda and an opinion. An agenda means you have some objective to be achieved. People on all sides of the political spectrum can have an agenda, not just oil companies.

its an interesting if rather wild theory. and of course bring us back to the royal society being the sort of anarcho lefty types who want to "punish the rich".

Anyway, since you're ignoring half of what I say, and twisting the other half out of context, I don't suppose this discussion will go anywhere.

Although, can you justfy inpuning the reputation of thousands of scientists without any research or knowlege of their reports? If I was one of the aforementioned scientists, id be quite disgusted at your remark. Don't suppose you are going to throw out your Noam Chomsky books are you?

to repeat again and indeed again it is the royal society that is complaining about the oil companies.talk about ignorig what people say ;-)

[punky]

Yet again you ignore the point. I'll try and contain my suprise.

[hatedbythemail]

Originally Posted by punky

Yet again you ignore the point. I'll try and contain my suprise.

YET AGAIN YOU IGNORE THAT IT IS THE ROYAL SOCIETY THAT IS COMPLAINING ABOUT THE OIL COMPANIES. IT IS THE UK'S NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE. I DO NOT CLAIM OR PRETEND TO BE A SCIENTIST, JUST SOMEONE WHO IS FOLLOWING THE ISSUES.