Fallacy of the leading question. Try again.
Wait, how is that a leading question? What’s the fallacy there?
Do you not believe that the emails are so damning? Because that’s what you seem to be saying throughout the entire thread. If I have misrepresented your position, I apologize and wonder why we’re arguing in the first place.
Is it not fair to demand to know whether or not you, a person who is attacking us for not spending the time to read the evidence against us when not presented well, avoided doing what you criticized us for? That is, is it not fair when you say “You didn’t put in the necessary work to understand what I’m saying,” to demand you to show that you did the work, especially when various renowned organizations in a variety of studies (including at least one that had a very clear anti-warming bias) came up with different answers?
Furthermore, way to completely trounce my arguments… By addressing one virtually inconsequential point and labeling it a fallacy. What is this, 8th-grade debate club? Come on, address my fucking post.
Also, guys, something I’ve noticed. There are three very different issues floating around right now, and they often get very confused. I can never be sure against what I’m arguing.
- Did the scientists at UCA or whatever that place is called manipulate data to create an incorrect image of global warming and climate change?
- Did the scientists at UCA work honestly, but not submit their results the way they should have/didn’t act like scientists should have?
- Is the entire field of climate science full of shit when it speaks of global warming?
Please try to keep these apart…
Obviously, someone funded the pro global warming research otherwise we wouldn’t know about it.
Given the parameters of your question, should not both of them have a chance to pursue their theory?
And given the consensus on climate change, what is the chance that a researcher will get funding to question that theory from other than those interested in it being dis-proven? Are we saying that of those two researchers in your example, only one of them deserves being listened to when they present their results?
Nope. That’s after the fact, and more a matter of reporting and media attention than funding itself. Proving media bias is like proving an attitude, its not falsifiable.
What has the funding from the fossil fuel companies prevented? They haven’t dis-proven the theory. They haven’t stopped action on alleviating the situation, at most there might be some delay. But, most of the delay is coming from politicians who have little options for funding changes without the potential of destroying their economies. That isn’t the fault, or caused by, or facilitated by the energy companies. So, yes they can provide billions and billions of dollars to attempting to dis-prove the theory, far more than that being spent on proving it, and yet, which side is winning the argument? Not the ones spending the money to dis-prove it.
So, as I’ve said, the amount of money is not relevant to who is right or wrong and to say one side is wrong because they spend more money on something that is in their best interests doesn’t make the other side any more right because they’ve spent less when both sides benefit if their side is proven right (or chosen right depending on how you feel about the validity of the theory).
Uh, the modern understanding of the problem was not invented by Al Gore, try the Eisenhower era, and Callendar did not get a penny for his climate research, and neither was Plass, he was working with the military. He obtained the values of the transmission of radiation through the atmosphere due to CO2 by pure serendipity, if you can call that the investigation of how to make heath seeking missiles more effective during the cold war.
No, he invented the internet.
Gee, some researchers do work without getting paid for that specific research. I used to do woodworking because it interested me. I wasn’t paid for it nor did I make any money at it, yet I had a job that allowed me to do it. But then we weren’t talking about people who didn’t get paid nor would benefit from their research were we?
Well, unless you are claiming that all the researchers who do work on the pro-climate change side are doing it for free and never get paid for it by those who stand to benefit from the proof of that theory? Or that no researchers are so vested in their stance on the pro-side that they might tend to dismiss contrary evidence if it was outside what they wished to see? The latter goes against the research I did when I was in university on fraud in science. It happens quite a bit. I’m not saying it has happened in this case, btw.
Oh suuuuuure you are not…
The point however was that history shows who is the one making the big lie, as you said, whoever gets science on their side does not depend on who has the most money, after more than 60 years and the latest BEST inquiry it is more clear nowadays that the proponents of AGW are correct.
He never claimed that. Though he did support funding the development of Arpanet, which was a precursor to the internet.
Really? I’ve already made my opinion known up thread.
Who is making the big lie? The oil companies or their researchers? Are their researchers scientists? If they are scientists, then they should know what the ‘truth’ is.
So, in this case they must know they are lying, correct? Are they lying because they are getting paid by some company? If so, then why would you dismiss someone working for example, a tidal power generation as to the affects their systems make on the environment? Or say, their contention which could be that they are more environmentally beneficial than wind power? I can almost guarantee that both companies would be fully in support of climate change such that any research they would do on the subject would most likely support it (and any research that they find against it would likely fall into the shredder).
Come on, you can’t be that naive? Actually, you could be. Most true believers are. Everyone else is evil and liars except those who support your beliefs. God is on your side, hallelujah! And those on the right are the ones who see things in black and white.:rolleyes:
Yes and I never claimed that the theory of climate change started with Al Gore.
Both as I have seen their “work”.
The Petroleum Institute, that is the one of the most important groups of scientists that work for the fossil fuel industry, is officially punting on this issue, their scientists are divided (you HAVE to wonder what is the difference when noticing what comes next: ), and yet the ones that we get to hear in congressional hearings are the fossil fuel scientists that continue to say that we should not worry. Unfortunately for your point all other scientific organizations or groups related to the issue have come to overwhelmingly say that AGW is a problem.
As in the case of Pat Michaels it is not that they lie, but that they nowadays claim that only the low end of the predicted changes will take place, IMHO an attempt to lie by omission, and this is because** they know better**.
As the evidence shows, even here you are wrong, after seeing the evidence of historian Naomy Oreskes
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full
I do not need God on my side as I’m an agnostic, 
deniers like Senator Inhofe though **do **need him to claim that everything will be fine.
He was mentioned only to point at the most likely suspect to come when someone is attempting to ignore the actual timeline of how we got to the current state of affairs,
Calling them just “some researchers” to the ones that gave us the modern understanding of the issue is not only insulting, but it shows that the denial point there is to ignore that AGW was an idea that when it was proposed it actually came **against **the interest of the scientists of then, the consensus in the past was that we should not do anything about man made CO2 as the evidence then suggested that the accumulation of it was not going to be a problem.
The point here is one that is seldom mentioned in discussions like this, it is really hard, if not impossible, to point at a modern scientific revolution that had to fight for decades or even centuries to be finally recognized thanks to the evidence that was found, only to see it then be dismissed later thanks to very feeble contrarian evidence. If you continue to expect that this will be case with AGW you are really the one expecting a miracle, and you are the one relying on faith to get it.
I agree. I don’t expect that they will find evidence to dispute the theory. If anything, evidence will be found that makes the predictions more accurate, or it will be changed to account for those things not anticipated at this time. I doubt it will be dis-proven. People change their environment for good and bad.
Again, I’m arguing that to discount one side based upon them paying for research that benefits them means you should do it for both sides. Or, ignore it entirely. In this situation the preponderance of evidence is with AGW. In whatever cases arise in the future where the there is more doubt, it pays to look at the evidence rather than the motivations of those who present it.
Hence my glib answer.
It seems that the climate change industry has a slight credibility problem.
All kidding aside, ALL computer models work the same-they take data inputs, and deliver an output that is (hopefully) reflective of reality.
Now, we have a problem-the much feared “hockey stick” temperature rise is not happening. So the high priests of the AGW church/cult decide to “massage” the inputs, until the “desired” output is achieved. Nothing wrong with that, but this is NOT the “scientific method”.
So we have a problem-unless the people/dupes can be convinced that disaster is at hand, funding for the Church of AGW is threatened-we cannot have that?
So, back to the model-and a little tweaking, and we get the desired result.
Now, I submit that, should the next decade show (continued) cooling, we will have the same malarky-just some more tweaking of the inputs.
Bonus point: AGW not only “explains” hot summers, it also “explains”
-reduced hurricane activity in the Western Atlantic
-colder than normal winters
-heavier than normal rainfall
-drought in the American SW
-colder winters in England
-warmer winters in England
To quote Mark Twain (from “Life on the Mississippi” “science is so wonderful-we get such a great return with so trifling an investment of facts”:smack:
Th commentary from the top climate scientists, where they discuss the “lack of warming” and other troubling issues, like how the climate hasn’t changed like they wanted, that alone is worth the price of admission. It makes slogging through the thousands of mails worth it.
Not that they still aren’t mostly boring as hell.
Well, good to see that you agree on the science, but it is clear that you are writing a book on “100 ways to continue to make a moot point”
As shown on post 272 your demands of looking for evidence of who’s side being affected by the power of that funding and their attempts at changing public opinion with that power has already been shown, the next step is still missing by you, after seeing that evidence, that step consists of taking the sources of information that one relies on to task, to be truthful or else they will be dismissed, and also to let yahoos like FX and **ralph124c **to cut it out or let them know how off base they are.
Well, with the lack of actual discussion about the emails from the true believers, maybe I should look at the published believers commentary.
From Forbes
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevezwick/2011/11/28/climategate-2-0-more-like-climatefluff-3-12/3/
Poor Steve Zwick, he really needed an editor, and one familiar with the story, to save him from the mistake he just made.
No no no Steve. The line you took out of context is from 2007, long before the emails were stolen and published. It was from the time McIntyre was trying to get the station data released. It didn’t happen in response to climategate, it IS part of climategate. Try to keep up.
The fit seems to be coming from your side. Chill out dude.
Well, you asked the question.
I think any reasonable person might ask a different question. Like, why is a top climate scientists discussing character assassination? At the same time he is talking about destroying files, data and anything else rather than let anyone see it?
And why doesn’t it bother the true believer to discover this sort of behavior was a constant thing? It’s no isolated incident. There is a long pattern of behavior, all based on PREVENTING anyone from knowing the whole truth.
That’s the sort of thing that bothers some people.
Not you Steve, but some people find that appalling.
Oh, and when you describe everyone you disagree with as “the Wingnuts”, you aren’t making yourself look good. Plus, it’s supposed to be “deniers”. Did you not get the memo?
Quote:
" yahoos like FX and ralph124c to cut it out or let them know how off base they are. "
I think that such statements are contrary to the spirit of the SDMB.
Don’t respond to the trolls. It’s the only way.