Global Warming explained - "inconvenient" or otherwise!

[KLB]

I've been spending a great deal of time reading reports that follow the sources of money for prominent GW deniers and it should be no surprise that a massive amount of it traces back to ExxonMobil through a network of front organizations that include (but is not limited to): American Enterprise Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, American Council for Capital Formation Center for Policy Research, the American Legislative Exchange Council, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, the International Policy Network, Frontiers of Freedom, Global Climate Science Team, Center for Science and Public Policy, George C. Marshall Institute, Chicago-based Heartland Institute, Tech Central Station, The Advancement of Sound Science Center, and Free Enterprise Education Institute (a.k.a. Free Enterprise Action Institute).

 

While I have not yet compiled the list of "scientists" who benefited from ExxonMobil's campaign of disinformation and efforts to manufacturer false debate on the issue of global warming, I have recognized the names of some of the "scientists" who's papers have been cited in this thread.

 

For those who are seeking the truth (I know the GW deniers will choose to ignore this), I would recommend reading the Union of Concerned Scientists report entitled: "Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science".

 

Currently I am on page 29 of this 69 page report and thus far it has very carefully detailed how the web of money and disinformation by GW deniers traces back to ExxonMobil. The report also provide very compelling reasons why some of the reports cited in this thread to help refute climate change are wrong and/or completely invalid. Of course I'm sure some GW denier will try and claim that the Union of Concerned Scientists is biased and an unreliable source just like they have tried to dismiss the IPCC.

[SkepticLance]

To KLB

 

Be very careful with your current course of action.

 

The moment you start accusing scientists of corruption, you become a mud slinger. Scientists the world over, and in numerous disciplines, accept money from business in order to carry out their research. If you, or some lobby group, carries out research on any select group of scientists, you will find plenty of examples where they accepted money from sources that can be criticised.

 

It is totally and completely irrelevent, and somewhat dirty. If you want to criticise a scientist, do it by looking at their work, and present the criticism in the proper scientific way. If you spend your time chasing up mud to sling, that says more nasty things about you than about those scientists.

[1veedo]

If you want to criticise a scientist, do it by looking at their work, and present the criticism in the proper scientific way

Well although it may be ad hominem to argue against a paper based on where it received its funding, most scientists lose their credibility by publishing false information just to make some money.

 

And if you notice SkepticLance, he says that the paper "provide very compelling reasons why some of the reports cited in this thread to help refute climate change are wrong and/or completely invalid." So the paper is doing two things:

 

1) Showing scientific reasons why these papers are incorrect.

2) Showing where people are getting money to purposefully publish this false information.

 

You are picking out #2 and ignoring #1 which is known as confirmation bias, and it borders a straw man. You can't just dismiss this report off-hand -- If you are interested in the scientific reasons why many of these papers against global warming are incorrect, which is exactly what you indicated in your post, then you should read this report.

[SkepticLance]

To 1veedo.

 

If a contributor to this thread has good scientific reason to show that a point someone makes is not scientifically valid, then that is a legitimate part of the debate. However, if someone tries to discredit a scientist because he or she obtained funds from industry, whether Exxon or anyone else, then that is NOT a legitimate part of good scientific debate. That is called dirty play, and is to be discouraged.

[KLB]

To 1veedo.

 

If a contributor to this thread has good scientific reason to show that a point someone makes is not scientifically valid, then that is a legitimate part of the debate. However, if someone tries to discredit a scientist because he or she obtained funds from industry, whether Exxon or anyone else, then that is NOT a legitimate part of good scientific debate. That is called dirty play, and is to be discouraged.

 

As 1veedo has pointed out, the report provides important scientific discussion to why many of the claims made in this thread against GW are wrong.

 

At the same time, the report also shows that many of the climate change skeptics being routinely cited aren't even scientists at all and that many of the others that are have been paid off, which seriously compromises their credibility.

 

The report goes to great trouble to show that many of the "papers" that are frequently cited to debunk climate change are not even peer reviewed and have been very carefully planted by ExxonMobil via its proxies to lead the general population to draw incorrect conclusions and to sow doubt about climate change.

 

What ExxonMobil has been doing is no different than what the tobacco industry did. In fact, as the report by the Union of Concerned Scientists reveals, often times ExxonMobil has used the exact same people and organizations that were involved with the tobacco industry's efforts to discredit the science surrounding the health risks of smoking.

 

The credibility of the reports and the motives of those creating the reports is a very legitimate part of the debate because there is substantial evidence to show that there is intentional campaign of disinformation taking place on the part of those who want to discredit climate change.

 

It should be noted that unlike talk radio hosts and political pundits, the Union of Concerned Scientists is not in the business of character assassination. The fact that the UCS went to the level of trouble they did in the report to detail what they see as scientific fraud and to chase down the money trail should speak volumes about the level of disinformation that is being spread to manufacture debate and disagreement over climate change.

 

==Added Comment==

On the topic of character assassination; it should be noted that through their proxies, ExxonMobil has waged a very deliberate campaign of character assassination to discredit climate change scientists. It is in that report and one can read more about it at http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/some_like_it_hot.html

[SkepticLance]

To KLB

 

I do not give a damn about anything coming from Exxon Mobil or from the UCC. I do get concerned when I see reputable scientists names dragged through the mud because of the source of their funding, when this is irrelevent to the issues we are discussing. I am not accusing you, since you have not yet done that. I am saying, though, that the direction of your enquiries is heading that way, and you need to be careful.

 

There is nothing new about this type of debate. Muck slinging has been a part of it from way back. On one side, GW enthusiasts accuse sceptics of being in the pay of oil companies. Sceptics accuse enthusiasts of running with what is fashionable because it is easier to get research funding that way. Both are right, and both are wrong. Both are dirty!

 

Lets keep clear of the mud, and run the debate along the lines of what is scientifically sound, and not descend to reputation wrecking. Forget the ICC. If they are going around digging up dirt on scientists who disagree with them, then they deserve our contempt.

[theCPE]

Currently man is causing over 90% of global warming, and this comes with a 90% certainty . Previously we have not had nearly as great of an influence on global warming. Before 1950 it was about 64% to 84%. Recently though (after the mid-to-late 1970s), human influences have been an entire order of magnitude grater then non-human influences. Saying that all of global warming sense 1900 has been 90% caused by humans is however incorrect.

 

If you are going to throw around incredulous absurdities like that the you better be prepared to site sources, show some math, give an explanation. That is bogus crap and I have already demonstrated why simply.

 

There is no way man was causing nearly 85% of GW before 1950, that sentence alone makes me question even the simplest understanding of the science of GW that you may have.

 

Either you still do not understand the definition of GW and should visit that EPA link I provided earlier....or you are misreading articles from the IPCC. Either way it is a proven fact that without natural GW our planet would be 50C cooler, it doesn't take a mathematician to realize that 85% of such a number is not even approached by man made causes........

 

This only gets more humorous.

[KLB]

Lets keep clear of the mud, and run the debate along the lines of what is scientifically sound, and not descend to reputation wrecking. Forget the ICC. If they are going around digging up dirt on scientists who disagree with them, then they deserve our contempt.

 

First it is the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), which is a VERY HIGHLY RESPECTED scientific organization; not "UCC" or "ICC". Second, how convenient to to cry fowl about digging up muck when the muck that is being dug up paints one's position in a poor light. I've seen no reluctance on the side of GW deniers to dismiss and throw mud at those scientists, organizations and reports that support climate change (e.g. you just now with the UCS, the IPCC, etc.). GW skeptics have been trying to claim that the science behind global warming is wrong using flawed studies and then have been attempting to bait the general lay person into proving them wrong. This is the same basic tactic that was deployed by the cigarette industry and is entirely disingenuous.

 

The UCS report simply took the time to trace down the money trail and then look for the relationships behind the various organizations that are working the hardest to discredit the science behind climate change. What they found was that in many cases the money trail lead back to ExxonMobil and many of the front organizations not only shared some of the same staff members, but in some cases shared all of the same staff members. Furthermore, some of these organizations and staff members were the exact same ones deployed by the cigarette industry to discredit the scientific research that showed that smoking is hazardous to one's health.

 

ExxonMobil's involvement is increadibly important. Not only are they involved in disseminating disinformation via their front organizations, but ExxonMobil has spent over sixty million dollars on lobbying efforts to undermine public policy including policy related to climate change. In fact, the report documents numerous instances where ExxonMobil was able to directly affect U.S. public policy on this matter via the Bush Administration.

 

SkepticLance, of all people in this discussion you really need to read the UCS report and you need to familiarize yourself with whom the UCS is and what it is not. I can tell you that the UCS is not a political hatchet organization out to destroy the characters of those who disagree with their position (unlike some of the groups that ExxonMobil has funded).

 

Here is some more reporting on the issue of who the prominent GW skeptics are and whom is funding them:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/reports/skeptics.html (ties direct links between tobacco industry and ExxonMobil via GW skeptics who were funded by both)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/reports/skeptics.html (PBS Frontline: The Doubters of Global Warming)

[KLB]

Either way it is a proven fact that without natural GW our planet would be 50C cooler, it doesn't take a mathematician to realize that 85% of such a number is not even approached by man made causes........

This is such a great misdirection of the issue. There is no question that there are times in earth's history that it was both much, much colder and much much hotter than it is today. This, however, is totally irrelevant to the main debate about global warming because human society did not exist during those times. What we care about is how the climate has changed in the last five-hundred years and how fast it is changing today than it was two-hundred years ago.

 

The fact of the matter is that the rate at which CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere has been accelerating within the last century as has been the rate at which the earth's climates have been warming. Just like human civilizations would not fair well if the climate cooled by 10C, it also would not fair well if the climate warmed by 10C. Our reason for wanting to stop global warming (e.g. lock the climate temperatures to what they are currently) is so that the world's climates remain within a nice stable range that is optimal for our civilizations.

[SkepticLance]

KLB said :

 

SkepticLance, of all people in this discussion you really need to read the UCS report and you need to familiarize yourself with whom the UCS is and what it is not. I can tell you that the UCS is not a political hatchet organization out to destroy the characters of those who disagree with their position (unlike some of the groups that ExxonMobil has funded).

 

I have no interest or desire in reading the UCS report. You have told me enough. Muck raking is muck raking no matter who does it or what their rationalisation is. There is not even anything new about it. As I said, I have been encountering this tactic for all the years I have been reading up on climate change. Both sides do it, and it is equally obnoxious, no matter who is involved.

 

Again, if a scientist accepts research funds from business, whether Exxon Mobil or any other, it only means they have accepted funds to permit them to carry out their research. It does not tarnish them in any way. Scientists have been accepting research funds from business for many years. For example : medical researchers use Big Pharma as a major source of funding. Without that, many would not be able to carry out research at all.

 

If you are going to start accusing scientists of corruption because they accept funds from business, where do you stop? If you attacked all such recipients, you would be accusing probably 50% of all research scientists globally of being corrupt. Let's stop this nonsense right now. Lets stop the muck slinging.

[ParanoiA]

At the same time, the report also shows that many of the climate change skeptics being routinely cited aren't even scientists at all and that many of the others that are have been paid off, which seriously compromises their credibility.

 

But what does it matter even if that's true? If 2+2=4 but I pay someone to say it equals 13, that doesn't make it so and is easily refuted on scientific grounds - or mathmatical ground in that case. I think SkepticLance has pointed that out quite nicely. Following the money trail is cute and all, but you're going to punish folks for their association and discredit good science that otherwise, apparently, can't be refuted. Besides, I've heard more conspiracy crap in terms of the GW advocates - not the deniers.

 

The report goes to great trouble to show that many of the "papers" that are frequently cited to debunk climate change are not even peer reviewed and have been very carefully planted by ExxonMobil via its proxies to lead the general population to draw incorrect conclusions and to sow doubt about climate change.

 

Or, could it be that this is the underdog forcing the fad driven masses to balanced reporting? Is this ExxonMobil's way of fighting back against a hypocritical, fashionable, oil hating public (well, oil hating until they find out how many of their electronic gizmos are made from it....)?

 

Just pointing this out because your point in the above statement depends on the automatic "guilt association" with oil companies. So much for innocent until proven guilty huh? How about first explaining how it is that a company can invest money into research for self preservation automatically equalls corruption? Or are we just operating on assumptions? This doesn't sound very scientific, in my opinion - circumvents the method entirely. I guess that's ok for some scientists to do.

 

I'm more with SkepticLance on this kind of thing. How about a two way street with the whole truth thing? Just a suggestion....

 

If we're going to presume guilt with association and money, then how about applying that to GW advocates as well? There's a ton of money in it, and I'll bet if we trace the money trail with "Carbon Offset" businesses, we might just find our culprit...like Al Gore holding stock in that business. Gee, I could very easily just presume his guilt using your "money = evil" deduction.

 

The credibility of the reports and the motives of those creating the reports is a very legitimate part of the debate because there is substantial evidence to show that there is intentional campaign of disinformation taking place on the part of those who want to discredit climate change.

 

Or, a campaign of balance trying to counter the disinformation on climate change - perhaps being pimped by scientists who stand to profit from the carbon offset business??

 

Every one of your arguments can be turned around because they are not fact - they are speculative political fodder. This is why SkepticLance keeps trying to keep you "on the science". That's where the truth is. It isn't accurate to presume guilt and presume disinformation when contrary POV's surface around open debates. Beat the science. The motivations won't matter, and will be realized when the science behind it is debunked.

 

Anyway, I look forward to reading more posts on the science. This is good stuff.

[KLB]

SkepticLance, Close yourself off to the truth if you want. It is further evidence of sticking your head in the sand and ignoring inconvenient facts. The report isn't about muck raking it is about seeking the truth and disclosing to what lengths ExxonMobil was going to in their campaign to manufacture false debate and spread disinformation on the subject of climate change. Regardless of how inconvenient you find it, ExxonMobil's use of the tobacco industry's tactics is an incredibly important part of this discussion.

 

As part of my researching for this discussion, I spent an incredible amount of time over the past couple of days digging up articles that chase down the money trail and interconnected relationships among the most vocal GW skeptics. In addition to referencing some of my findings here, a also posted a detailed blog entry on some of my more notable findings under the title: "Who is funding climate change skeptics?"

 

A couple of highlights in that blog post, which I have not yet mentioned here comes from the PBS Frontline report "". The most damning connection they made was with leading climate change skeptic Frederick Seitz, Ph.D. He is a physicist who worked as a paid consultant to R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company from the late 1970s to late 1980s and has been Chairman Emeritus of the George C. Marshall Institute, and served on the Board of Academic and Scientific Advisors for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (both organizations have been funded by ExxonMobil).

 

I don't know about others, but I think knowing that a leading climate change skeptic who's work gets referenced frequently was also an important player in the tobacco industry's efforts to discredit the science behind smoking is a very important piece of information in this debate.

 

On a slightly different note in relation to ExxonMobil, the Boston Globe is reporting that ExxonMobil has been reevaluating their position on the issue of climate change since the release of IPCC's Feb. 2nd report. According to the Boston Globe, ExxonMobil's chief executive, Rex W. Tillerson, has acknowledged that greenhouse gas emissions from cars and industry are factors in global warming. Very interesting. (see: http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2007/02/15/debate_over_global_warming_is_shifting/)

[ParanoiA]

A couple of highlights in that blog post, which I have not yet mentioned here comes from the PBS Frontline report "The doubters of Global Warming". The most damning connection they made was with leading climate change skeptic Frederick Seitz, Ph.D. He is a physicist who worked as a paid consultant to R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company from the late 1970s to late 1980s and has been Chairman Emeritus of the George C. Marshall Institute, and served on the Board of Academic and Scientific Advisors for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (both organizations have been funded by ExxonMobil).

 

Again, you've made associations but no point! You know what? I noticed that the QT clerk by my house smokes cigarettes when on break. Now if that doesn't prove GW is bull, I don't know what does.

 

Make sense? I didn't think so. That's about as much sense as pointing out that person A is a GW denier and was also a second hand smoke denier. Who cares? That doesn't make him wrong. You need to prove that what he says or advocates is wrong.

 

Makes perfect sense to me that someone who suspects "fad science" is probably going to be interested in stuff like second hand smoke, global warming, and etc. If he believes that sort of thing, he's going to be available for railing against it, now isn't he?

[KLB]

Every one of your arguments can be turned around because they are not fact - they are speculative political fodder.

Every one of the money trails is documented facts. The UCS and other sources have gone to great lengths to document their sources of information, which often times comes from the organizations own tax filings.

 

This is why SkepticLance keeps trying to keep you "on the science". That's where the truth is.

The truth may lay with the science, but much of what is being used to support GW skeptics arguments is not science. That is the point many of the "science" being pushed the most by GW skeptics isn't science at all. As myself and most everyone here is really no more than a layperson when it comes to the research being used to support the various claims, we are in no position to refute the validity of the "data" being presented. ExxonMobil knows this and they have made a very concerted effort via their proxies to manufacture false scientific data and then get it published and cited by countless proxy organizations such that the public (you and I) get the impression that it the information is based on sound science. Thus they are able to sow doubt and debate where among the true scientific community that is researching this issue there is no longer any debate.

 

It isn't accurate to presume guilt and presume disinformation when contrary POV's surface around open debates. Beat the science. The motivations won't matter, and will be realized when the science behind it is debunked.

Normally I would agree with you, but in this case it is important to document the fact that it isn't science that we are trying to beat, rather a very concerted and organized campaign of disinformation. ExxonMobil's goal was to manufacture disinformation, which was spread as "valid debate" so as to distract the public and force scientists to refute the manufactured science as a means of derailing or at least delaying public policy that actually takes action on the issue of global warming. By debating the bad science on the terms you are proposing, we are doing exactly what ExxonMobil wants, where as we need to be rooting out the sources of the false information such that that information can be isolated from the debate. This is what the UCS was doing in their report.

 

Anyway, I look forward to reading more posts on the science. This is good stuff.

If there was good science being brought by both sides I would agree.

[KLB]

Again, you've made associations but no point!

I can not go and republish 69 pages of report in this thread to prove the point, I can only make the association. You must read the 69 page UCS report on this as well as follow the other sources I have provided. The information is there and it is painstakingly detailed.

 

You know what? I noticed that the QT clerk by my house smokes cigarettes when on break. Now if that doesn't prove GW is bull, I don't know what does.

This is a red herring.

 

That's about as much sense as pointing out that person A is a GW denier and was also a second hand smoke denier. Who cares? That doesn't make him wrong.

It does when you look for the motivation and follow all of the trails provided to you. There has been a very concerted effort to disinform the public on this issue just as there was was over the tobacco issue. In the case of the tobacco issue, once the tobacco industry papers were finally brought to light it was proven that they were knowingly manufacturing bad data and passing it off as legitimate science to sow doubt over the health risks of smoking. Then ExxonMobil turned around and employed the very same people via the very same organizations to sow disinformation on the issue of climate change. I can't help it if you won't read the UCS report, but all of the evidence is in that report. The PBS Frontline report only helps to reinforce what the UCS is reporting.

 

You need to prove that what he says or advocates is wrong.

The UCS report I cited does exactly this by showing how the primary GW skeptics reports were manufactured.

[ParanoiA]

Every one of the money trails is documented facts. The UCS and other sources have gone to great lengths to document their sources of information, which often times comes from the organizations own tax filings.

 

No, no. Your conclusion is NOT fact. Your conclusion is based off of the money trail - not the science. Person A makes money from Company B, sooooo they must be guilty - that's the baseless conclusion you're drawing. I don't do that to GW advocates, because that's political crap. I'm more interested in the science - that's where the truth is.

 

By your argument, anyone being provided money from someone else is guilty. That works both ways.

 

Only poor, starving, non-profit scientists are for real?

 

ExxonMobil knows this and they have made a very concerted effort via their proxies to manufacture false scientific data and then get it published and cited by countless proxy organizations such that the public (you and I) get the impression that it the information is based on sound science. Thus they are able to sow doubt and debate where among the true scientific community that is researching this issue there is no longer any debate.

 

Ok..so let me get this straight...they are in a conspiracy, a multi-organizational conspiracy, to spread disinformation? So...how is that only applicable to them? The same can't be said of "peer reviews" and your current process of validity? Oh of course not. Accusation without proof only works when you're pointing your finger at some kind of "business", like the oil business.

 

Well, since you require no facts, only traces of money, then I guess it's safe to assume Carbon Offset companies are part of the GW conspiracy. Just follow the money. Most scientists are employed by somebody, so that proves their guilt too. Gee, is there anyone left?

 

If there was good science being brought by both sides I would agree.

 

But that's the paradox. There is no good science if it disagrees with you. You just find out who pays them their salary, and then assume their guilt - whether or not they're actually guilty of anything.

 

Since you probably earn a paycheck from somebody, you're obviously guilty as well. Whoever pays you, has an opinion on GW and therefore "pursuades" you to be their advocate.

 

Presuming guilt is fun, no doubt, but takes the credibility out of the discussion. SkepticLance is the only one being genuine about the GW debate. Since you can't beat the science, then you beat the scientist - by association anyway.

[ParanoiA]

I can not go and republish 69 pages of report in this thread to prove the point, I can only make the association. You must read the 69 page UCS report on this as well as follow the other sources I have provided. The information is there and it is painstakingly detailed.

 

You still don't get it. All you said was Person A gets paid by Company B. That doesn't prove guilt in any shape or form, yet you keep pointing at this stuff as if it does.

 

It does when you look for the motivation and follow all of the trails provided to you.

 

No, you have inferred a motivation based on paychecks. You don't know what their motivation is. They might have a big issue with junk science and are highly suspicious of what they believe to be "fad science" - I know I do, and I don't make any money to say either way. That doesn't make them wrong in the least. It makes them biased - just like you.

[KLB]

ParanoiaA read the UCS report. It details that this isn't just a bias (which wouldn't be a "sin"), it has been a concerted and organized effort to spread disinformation and bad science to manufacture debate. Yes the report is really long, but it is front loaded such that one doesn't have to read every single page to see the key arguments and evidence.

 

While I always suspected that there was some efforts by the fossil fuel industries, to fund research skeptical of climate change, prior to my researching this issue as a result of this discussion I had no idea that there was a concerted effort to manufacture disinformation to sow debate where the debate is over.

 

The real tragedy of this is that there are probably some very sincere and very diligent scientists out there who still doubt the science of climate change or at least want to preform the duty of diligent watchdog. The problem is how are we to know who is the diligent skeptical researcher and who is intentionally sowing disinformation at the behest of those like ExxonMobil. ExxonMobil has done a tremendous disservice to the entire debate out of their own shortsighted self interests.

 

It is interesting to note that while initially some of the other oil giants were also skeptical of the science surrounding climate change, ExxonMobil really seems to have been the leader in the disinformation efforts and in fact the other oil companies, who also stood to lose a lot over the climate change issue have accepted the science and began to move forward to find solutions. Even Ford, who stands to be burdened with lots of regulations as a result of any effort to curb greenhouse gases has accepted the science of climate change.

[1veedo]

If you are going to throw around incredulous absurdities like that the you better be prepared to site sources, show some math, give an explanation. That is bogus crap and I have already demonstrated why simply.

I was alluding to previous posts where I had already provided references.

 

64 to 85% comes from Stott, Peter et al. (2003). Journal of Climate, vol. 16, p. 4079-4093. "Do Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to Recent Climate Change?"

And of course the 90% comes from the IPCC 2007 The Scientific Basis. I explained all of this back in post 102 and my references were back there too. You're just trying to wiggle around and make excuses but in reality, you have no excuses. You're just trying to ignore the data -- or stick your head in the sand as KLB would put it. (it reminds me of children who when you try to tell them something they hold their ears shut and sing, "I can't hear you la la la.")

 

It does not tarnish them in any way.

When someone hands you $10,000 to say "global warming isn't real" then I'd say it's "tarnishing" them maybe a little bit.

Or' date=' could it be that this is the underdog forcing the fad driven masses to balanced reporting? Is this ExxonMobil's way of fighting back against a hypocritical, fashionable, oil hating public (well, oil hating until they find out how many of their electronic gizmos are made from it....)?[/quote']Actually ExonMibile has recently stopped all this nonsense about proving global warming wrong. Just a couple months ago they were giving out $10,000 to get an audio clip from a scientist saying that global warming isn't real and today... they're trying to be the new "legitimate" ExonMobile (they didn't want their name to get associated with global warming denial -- people were starting to catch onto what they were doing). They just happen to be a good example because they are comparable to BigTobacco in the smoking industry. Many of the same scientists that were getting paid to say "smoking is good for you" are now saying that "global warming isn't real" -- they have a habit so to speak of getting paid to support corporate interests.

 

This isn't proof that their arguments are incorrect though. As I'm sure we all agree now ad hominem arguments are not relevant to the validity of the statements being made, however, they can provide insight into what exactly is going on (eg the scientific community is in general agreement that humans are in fact causing the majority of global warming while most scientists that disagree are just getting paid off). What a lot of you keep ignoring is the fact that this article provides scientific reasons to not believe some of theses people. It is "tracing the money" and at the same time demonstrating on a scientific basis why these arguments are incorrect in the first place.

[theCPE]

Right.....

 

And you have yet, well you or klb or anyone for that matter to point out any flaws in the numbers I provided which clearly show that the numbers you are saying are bogus.

 

Further, the little chart means absolutely nothing, I want the equations, the mathematical breakdown.....

 

Till then my numbers stand...as saying "that is bullshit" like you did without even suggesting why just wont cut the mustard.

 

CO2 3% of GW

water vapor 97%

man produces 40% of CO2

.4*.03= 1.2%

 

Feel free to show where this is wrong.

[ParanoiA]

This isn't proof that their arguments are incorrect though. As I'm sure we all agree now ad hominem arguments are not relevant to the validity of the statements being made, however, they can provide insight into what exactly is going on (eg the scientific community is in general agreement that humans are in fact causing the majority of global warming while most scientists that disagree are just getting paid off). What a lot of you keep ignoring is the fact that this article provides scientific reasons to not believe some of theses people. It is "tracing the money" and at the same time demonstrating on a scientific basis why these arguments are incorrect in the first place.

 

Now that sounds more like it. It's not as if the money trail is useless. And I'm no fan of corporations (see "Are corporations good for America" thread...), but refuting them on a scientific basis is by far, to me, the best way to prove their corruption. Once you prove their science "trickery", then the corruption is obvious. Rather than the other way around...

 

CO2 3% of GW

water vapor 97%

man produces 40% of CO2

.4*.03= 1.2%

 

Can it really be reduced down to this?

[SkepticLance]

To KLB

 

Please stop. This whole line of reasoning is totally distasteful. Let's get back to the science.

[ParanoiA]

From Wiki:

 

On Earth, the major natural greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36–70% of the greenhouse effect (not including clouds); carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9–26%; methane (CH4), which causes 4–9%; and ozone, which causes 3–7%.

 

Is this a subjective measurement? Unless clouds fill in the rest, 36% to 70% is quite a way off from 97%.

 

Edit: Forgot to add the link...

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

[1veedo]

Right.....

 

And you have yet' date=' well you or klb or anyone for that matter to point out any flaws in the numbers I provided which clearly show that the numbers you are saying are bogus.

 

Further, the little chart means absolutely nothing, I want the equations, the mathematical breakdown.....

 

Till then my numbers stand...as saying "that is bullshit" like you did without even suggesting why just wont cut the mustard.

 

CO2 3% of GW

water vapor 97%

man produces 40% of CO2

.4*.03= 1.2%[/quote']You're looking for the equations and you turn to the "chilling perspective" site? Have you ever taken physics or a "real" science class where you have to understand the mathematics involved? 3% of GW * .4 = 1.2 is not a mathematical breakdown. It's some idiot trying to work with concepts that are well beyond his understanding. (lol neither is "85% of 50C" -- this is just bad logic)

 

If you want to understand the math behind the IPCC then take climatology 101. It's really just basic science here -- they teach this stuff in college.

Feel free to show where this is wrong.

This is an argument from ignorance.

 

If you really want proof that 1.2% is incorrect, all you have to look at one of the premises, "man produces 40% of CO2"

 

This statement in and of itself is factually incorrect. Humans have produced 99% of the observed increase in CO2. Volcanoes have produced about 1% of this (pdf).

 

Also, as I've tried to explain over and over again, an increase in CO2 causes an increase in water vapor. That 97% water vapor is actually caused by human activities through a feedback system that has been observed and is very well-understood. One of the reasons CO2 is such a strong force in the climate is because of its effects on other factors in the climate -- such as water vapor (Understanding Climate Change Feedbacks). It only makes up like .039% of the atmosphere or something but it's effects are very far-reaching. Breaking down climate science on such an elementary level severely impairs ones ability to make intelligent conclusions.

 

Btw how is it that you assume this one guy knows better then the entire scientific community? You're just trying to appeal to authority, "well my source is better then yours." I would contend that several thousand scientists have a much better handle on things then this guy.

 

If you want to argue this way then why don't you show me some evidence proving my two sources incorrect? (and not with circumstantial arguments -- use good logic that addresses specific statements in the papers).

Can it really be reduced down to this?

Lol, exactly my point.

[KLB]

Please stop. This whole line of reasoning is totally distasteful. Let's get back to the science.

 

It is only reason it distasteful to you is that the evidence I am providing is totally invalidating the foundation upon the evidence that GW deniers use to press their case. What I have presented shows that much of the the most cited skeptical climate change research is nothing more than a cynical attempt by ExxonMobil to confuse the issue of climate change.

 

We can not debate science when part of the debate is founded upon flawed "research" that was planted to sow confusion. None of us have the research capability to go through every bit of the GW skeptic references to figure out A) what is legitimate peer reviewed research and B) to go through the reports item by item to find their logic flaws.

 

If you think UCS report is flawed, then prove how they drew the wrong conclusions from the money trail AND interrelationships between the organizations that are pressing the case against climate change the hardest.

 

It would have been nice to have a good debate based on solid science. Unfortunately, due to ExxonMobil's attempt to sow disinformation,

the only way this can happen is is to strictly rely on scientific papers that have been peer reviewed and published by highly respected scientific organizations. Everything else must be deemed to be suspect. This pretty much invalidates all evidence that the GW deniers have presented in this thread to date.

 

Normally we could rely on reports that summarize scientific papers and carry on a lively debate but in this case we can not trust anything that is not strictly peer reviewed through rigorous and completely transparent peer reviewed processes. This virtually eliminates all papers and references skeptical of climate change.