Libsmasher
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2008
- Messages
- 3,151
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Aussie scientist now opposes ...
- Thread starter Libsmasher
- Start date
Werbung:
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
Breaking news , 1 guy changes his mind.... Vast majority still agree with global warming.....
Libsmasher
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2008
- Messages
- 3,151
Lots of "guys" are changing their minds, many others would but it takes courage to take on the huge ecofascist religious establishment.
Popeye
Well-Known Member
Most of those so called "scientists" have either been paid off by Exxon Mobil or are connected to an organization that is funded by them.
Until an objective consensus is reached by the climate change scientific community, I'm not buying any BS from a paid off Aussie. Right now, the overwhelming majority believe that AGW does indeed exist and poses a significant risk to the future of our planet.
Just out of curiosity how do you account for the melting of the polar ice caps?
Libsmasher
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2008
- Messages
- 3,151
Ah - another slur from the slurmeister. Prove this charge, or retain your rep as an unceasing liar.
Ain't happening. In 2007, the lib media followed the ecofascist script in reporting a typical variation that happened to be in the downward direction. They've been mute about the 2008 upward direction, since that doesn't fit the "script". the university of illinois has tracked sea ice for 30 years - here's their graph:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/03/goddard_polar_ice/
Popeye
Well-Known Member
Between 1998 and 2005, Exxon Mobil funneled $16 million to a network of organizations to promote skepticism on the issue of climate change. These organizations, which were often staffed with the same people, published and republished non peer reviewed works of a small group of scientific spokespeople. These papers have been discredited by reputable climate change scientists and the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community.
Between 2000 and 2006, Exxon Mobil through its PAC and people affiliated with Exxon Mobil contributed over $4 million to election campaigns with almost all of that money going to Bush and other anti environmental Republicans. During this time period, Exxon Mobil spent over $61 million on lobbyists to control the thinking of the Republican Congress, the Bush administration and influence U.S. public policy.
Now there's a big surprise, anyone ever wonder why Republicans are almost universally opposed to doing anything about AGW? In fact, they like to pretend that it doesn't exist. As they say...follow the money.
Organizations that have been funded by Exxon Mobil and used to promote AGW skepticism, I'm sure you'll recognize some of the names: 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 the Free Enterprise Education Institute.
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
Polar ice cap melting
Between 2000 and 2006, Exxon Mobil through its PAC and people affiliated with Exxon Mobil contributed over $4 million to election campaigns with almost all of that money going to Bush and other anti environmental Republicans. During this time period, Exxon Mobil spent over $61 million on lobbyists to control the thinking of the Republican Congress, the Bush administration and influence U.S. public policy.
Now there's a big surprise, anyone ever wonder why Republicans are almost universally opposed to doing anything about AGW? In fact, they like to pretend that it doesn't exist. As they say...follow the money.
Organizations that have been funded by Exxon Mobil and used to promote AGW skepticism, I'm sure you'll recognize some of the names: 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 the Free Enterprise Education Institute.
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
Polar ice cap melting
Libsmasher
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2008
- Messages
- 3,151
This is the leftwing boilerplate ecofascist blather that we've all come to know and love, and I see you refuse to accept my challenge to prove that the australian scientist I quoted was funded by your nefarious forces, not that that would make any difference logically. And nobody should hold their breath waiting for you to actually criticize his study.
What you call the "overwhelming consensus" amounts to not much more than "votes" by many in the scientific community, based on the work of a very few scientists, whose methods and conclusions are now coming under increasing question. The more though that AGW becomes increasingly a government religious doctrine, government being the holder of the research purse strings, the less inclined individual scientist become to challenge the anointed theory, even though they strongly suspect it's BS. The position of those scientists begins to look increasingly like that of Galileo vis-a-vis the Church: question the sacred doctrines, and you'll pay the price.
What does it matter who funded them, if you can't rebut what they say? Here's your argument in essence:
"Their scientific conclusions are wrong, because they were funded by an oil company." Argumentim ad Oil Companyus ?
Here's a better path: follow your illogic and intellectual cowardice. Does "debate" mean to you "defame the other side"??
You quote the whole conservative establishment, but the whole liberal establishment, basically the Academy, is on the other side.
Sorry, but as anyone who passed Logic 101 with at least a "C" can readily discern, your funding "argument" fall flat on its face.
Popeye
Well-Known Member
Study? It turns out your "scientist" David Evans claims expertise on global warming because of two things: his being a "rocket scientist" and his having previously done "carbon accounting" for the Australian government.
As a matter of fact, Evans has a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering and has not published a single peer reviewed research paper on the subject of climate change. In fact he has published only one single paper in his entire career, and that was back in 1987 and had nothing to do with global warming.
Are you sure Evans wasn't on Sen. Inhofe's infamous list of 400 AGW skeptics? The vast majority of his "scientists" turned out to have nothing to do with climate change. As I remember there were TV weathermen, economists etc.
Libsmasher said:
For obvious reasons the fossil fuel industry has a vested interest in seeing AGW is met with skepticism. Why else would they have spent millions in funding AGW skeptics and their organizations?
If you had read the link I provided in my first response to your ridiculous OP you would have seen that Exxon Mobil and the AGW skeptic crowd has been using many of the same tactics and organizations that were used to dispute the health risks of smoking.
Of course knowing you, if Fox News reported that a Phillip Morris funded organization had done a "study" and found that smoking didn't cause lung cancer, you would be starting a thread on it claiming that there was nothing risky with puffing away to your heart's content and to think otherwise was all a liberal conspiracy.
Libsmasher
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2008
- Messages
- 3,151
The guy was in charge of creating the software to model the land based carbon emmissions in australia, to check compliance with Kyoto. That would make in INTIMATELY familiar with sources and quantitative information on carbon emmissions data, and CERTAINLY better informed than scientists who merely read articles and then register a "vote". And the "rocket science" comment in his article was a joke that flew over your head like a rocket.
Among scientists, that would be a comment that means "I am the top guru" in the carbon accounting project. Smoking? Do you ever tire of dragging irrelevencies into the thread? You STILL haven't proven any "oil company" connection, inspite of repeatedly trying to drag your little innuendos into the discussion - put up or shut up. And dispute what Evans said in his article in detail - prove it wrong, if you can.
Logic for you:
- Does an "oil company" connection prove him wrong, even it there were one?
No.
- Does anything anyone did in the past about smoking prove him wrong?
No.
- Does the number of articles Evans published prove him wrong?
No.
You are tossing out every diversion except the kitchen sink, and haven't hit the target once.
Prove him wrong, or shut up.
(P.S.: I see you gave up on the melting polar ice cap theory too.
)Popeye
Well-Known Member
The guy was in charge of creating the software to model the land based carbon emmissions in australia, to check compliance with Kyoto. That would make in INTIMATELY familiar with sources and quantitative information on carbon emmissions data, and CERTAINLY better informed than scientists who merely read articles and then register a "vote". And the "rocket science" comment in his article was a joke that flew over your head like a rocket.
You haven't proved that Evan's is qualified to assert that AGW doesn't exist. Software or no, he quite simply lacks the credentials. Lets repeat some facts, shall we? .....Evans has a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering and has not published a single peer reviewed research paper on the subject of climate change.
Now until you can bring someone with the proper credentials into the argument, may I suggest you give up trying as you are only being made to look foolish.
Libsmasher said:
The connection to smoking is obvious. Let me quote from the study that you apparently have refused to look at:
In an effort to deceive the public about the reality of global warming ExxonMobil has underwritten the most sophisticated and most successful disinformation campaign since the tobacco industry misled the public about the scientific evidence linking smoking to lung cancer and heart disease.
I suggest you take a look at the link. Though I'm sure it won't change your mind (Limbaugh, Hannity and BillO have control of that) at least in the future you will know what I am referring to.
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
Libsmasher
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2008
- Messages
- 3,151
Your "peer-review" bleating is mindless argumentum ad authoritatem. Evans was EMINENTLY qualified to perform the task that he did, and his conclusions followed from his work. Once again, stop the idiot diversions and PROVE HIM WRONG. (Fat chance.
)Not worthy of a serious reply.
Popeye
Well-Known Member
Your "peer-review" bleating is mindless argumentum ad authoritatem. Evans was EMINENTLY qualified to perform the task that he did, and his conclusions followed from his work. Once again, stop the idiot diversions and PROVE HIM WRONG. (Fat chance.
Evans has a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering and has not published a single peer reviewed research paper on the subject of climate change.
That's really all that need be said. Your scientist, in the area of climate change, is a lightweight.
Libsmasher said:Not worthy of a serious reply.
Intelligent response Libsmasher and most telling....as when you don't have an answer just assert the question is not worthy of a reply. Unfortunately for you, that is an old trick and is easily seen through. Thus there is only one conclusion to be reached here...you are a phony, your "scientist" is a phony, and there is absolutely no evidence that we should give your OP any credence whatsoever.
Libsmasher
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2008
- Messages
- 3,151
You're just robotically repeating your already punctured mantra.
Evans degree made him eminently qualified for his job, and he has thorough-going experience in the area of climate change, and his quantitative work and determinations are FARRRRRRRRRR more qualified than all kinds of scientists who have done NO work in the field yet try to hold forth on the issue, merely participating in "votes". You do what all AGW religionists do when confronted with contradictory "inconvenient facts", natter about "qualifications" and journals. Deal with his arguments, or shut your mouth.You didn't make any assertion - you just keep blathering about FoxNews and Rush Limbaugh, when someone is struggling to get you to focus on the issue at hand. Do you think every evasion and stupid remark and slander you puke up is worthy of a reply? And the government of Australia appointed a phony to account for all the sources of greenhouse gas emmission in Australia?
Do you have ANY idea how foolish you sound??Watch now folks - he's going to post MORE about smoking and FoxNews and Rush Limbaugh.
I will direct you back to this next time you tell me my foreign policy comment is idiotic
Werbung:
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
I will direct you back to this next time you tell me my foreign policy comment is idiotic
makes you wounder what Libs degree makes him qualified for lol
