06 Aug 07
5 edits
Originally posted by SpastiGovCome on, Spastic. I think you need to post it a few more times. Start a couple of new threads, too.
Also, a few questions for you, as I had never seen that "disproving" essay.
1) "...Her study was not based on the keywords 'climate change,' but on 'global climate change.'"
Why isn't that considered an appropriate search restriction? We are discussing global warming, are we not?
2) "...She admitted to making a search term error that excluded about 11,000 papers..."
How many of those 11,000 papers support the "consensus" view? It seems suspicious that your "disproving" paper failed to give that information.
3) "...even if a small portion would not be considered 'peer reviewed'..."
What constitutes a "small portion" in this instance? Your paper did a nice job covering up some specific numbers and repeating a few others...
06 Aug 07
2 edits
Originally posted by SpastiGovHow formal and mature. I can definitely see you found a very professional source, there, Spastic.
"Well-reputed scientists, not just uninformed wackos, made such proposals. How quickly we forget."
While I'm at it, I'd like to clear something up.
You're attempting to disprove the importance of a consensus, which those of us supporting AGW have already conceded, and yet you are now attempting to prove that those who do not support AGW constitute the majoirty/consensus.
Incredible logic.
06 Aug 07
Originally posted by Wajomahttp://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/d-evans2007.pdf
...
The quote from Dr David Evans article:
"We now know that from 1940 to 1975 the earth cooled while atmospheric carbon increased..."
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/d-evans2007.pdf
scottish says: "And one for you. According to the graph, was the temperature higher in 1990 than 1890?"
...
"So how did we get into this mess? I’d like to make just one observation on the
interaction of science and politics.
The political realm is funnelling a lot of money into the scientific community on
climate and carbon. By the late 1990s, lots and lots of jobs depended on the idea that
carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of those jobs were bureaucratic, but
there were a lot of science jobs too. As mentioned, I was on that gravy train, making a
high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn’t blame carbon
emissions. And so were lots of people around me.
11
Government spending worldwide on climate issues by the late 1990s was enough to
employ every climate scientist in the world several times over, plus a lot of other
scientists as well. On well-paid, interesting jobs. The social pressure not to upset the
apple cart is huge. Talk about a vested interest! Not many scientists wish to risk the
wrath of their peers by pointing out that the evidence for blaming carbon dioxide is
now a bit thin. Peer review of scientific papers is nothing compared to this. This is
about money and good jobs. This is a topic that many scientists don’t want to think
about too hard. Don’t go there! No wonder it’s mainly retired or independent scientists
who are speaking out—it’s financial and social suicide for most others to speak out."
06 Aug 07
Originally posted by zeeblebotHaven't we been over this already? This shouldn't even be a factor in the debate any longer.
...lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming...
Sure, some scientists have received grants from companies, governments, and/or organizations that would profit from evidence supporting AGW, but others have received grants from companies (oil companies in particular), who would profit more from evidence to the contrary.
06 Aug 07
Originally posted by wittywonkaso, what kind of numbers are we talking here? does it equate to six-figure salaries for large numbers of bureaucrats and etc.?
Haven't we been over this already? This shouldn't even be a factor in the debate any longer.
Sure, some scientists have received grants from companies, governments, and/or organizations that would profit from evidence supporting AGW, but others have received grants from companies (oil companies in particular), who would profit more from evidence to the contrary.
06 Aug 07
Originally posted by wittywonkaso, a few millions of dollars over a few years ... while Evans talks about $150 million / year in ONE department in ONE country. to say nothing of Greenpeace's annual revenues.
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?ContentID=4870
Here's just one site in particular I ran into earlier today...
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/d-evans2007.pdf
"My Life With The Australian Greenhouse Office
I devoted six years of my life to working for the carbon accounting section of the
Australian Greenhouse Office, also known as the AGO. The carbon accounting section
is one of eleven sections in the AGO. It is a purely technical section; it makes no
policy. The section consists of a few public servants and a larger team of contractors
who come and go as their technical skills are required. I was employed as a contractor,
from 1999 to 2005.
The AGO had a staff of maybe 100, and a budget of about $150 million per year.
There were quite a few contractors, and we were well paid— my salary was well into
six figures. These were good, interesting, well paid science jobs, which are rare in
2
Australia. These jobs would not exist if we didn’t blame carbon emissions for global
warming—I was on the gravy train!
While I was at the AGO, no one talked to me about the evidence for blaming carbon
emissions. It was just assumed. There were graphs of the old ice core data on the
walls—atmospheric carbon moved in lockstep with global temperature. Yep, looked
like we were working to save the world!
The carbon accounting area isn’t like some academic areas where questioning the role
of carbon would be career suicide, but it seemed wiser not to question it. After all, it
was the “carbon” accounting section of the “Greenhouse” Office (wouldn’t want to
jump to conclusions or anything). The people in the accounting section are my friends,
and I won’t say anything to jeopardize their positions."
06 Aug 07
Originally posted by zeeblebotTin foil hat time!
so, a few millions of dollars over a few years ... while Evans talks about $150 million / year in ONE department in ONE country. to say nothing of Greenpeace's annual revenues.
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/d-evans2007.pdf
"My Life With The Australian Greenhouse Office
I devoted six years of my life to working for the carbon accounting se ...[text shortened]... accounting section are my friends,
and I won’t say anything to jeopardize their positions."
06 Aug 07
2 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzHmmm, before you wanted to isolate a 5 year cooling period, now you want long term trends. You make things up to suit yourself, who is the real liar by deception? Dr David Evans certainly hasn't changed his postion, nor have I that leaves ????????innz
It is absolutely about about long term trends. And yes, I am calling him a liar. He states that the earth cooled between 1940 and 1975. It was certainly cooler in 1975, but it didn't cool between, say, 1955 and 1975. To imply that it was is lying by deception.
Edit: also wants to isolate the 1955 1975 period, claims there was 5 years cooling from 1940. So what happened between 1945 and 1955? Damn can this gut even begin to think straight.
06 Aug 07
Originally posted by wittywonka"The declaration that the debate on global warming is over by activists, politicians and liberal scientists is indicative more of their contempt of the public than it is a result of vigorous scientific examination. Global warming proponents rely upon the publics' lack of scientific training and experience to force their agendas into the political arena and then establish their acceptance. When confronted with the reality that there are scientists still in the scientific community who 1) are not convinced that global warming is occurring for a variety of valid reasons and 2) are not convinced that humans have anything to do with global warming if it is occurring, the agenda-driven dismiss these dissenters by asserting that they are so few in number their objections are meaningless.
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011
"The most respected scientific bodies have stated unequivocally that global warming is occurring, and people are causing it by burning fossil fuels (like coal, oil and natural gas) and cutting down forests. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, which in 2005 the White House called 'the gold stand ...[text shortened]... an enough facts — about causes and fixes — to implement solutions right now."
In the 1500s, the debate was also "over" concerning the position of the Earth in the heavens. Almost every scientist, school and government accepted as fact that the celestial bodies (the Sun in particular) revolved around the Earth. There existed only one notable dissenter at the time, Copernicus. It took more than 100 years before the debate was reopened, the political results of which forced Galileo to recant his support of the theory in 1616, before finally publishing his studies in support of the theory in 1632. Such is the danger of declaring any scientific debate "over."
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52381
http://personals.galaxyinternet.net/tunga/OSGWD.htm