Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming?

[NCclimber 0]

Not as much as some would have us believe.

Quote

A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares.

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml

[quade 3]

Again, we see more and more of this propaganda of denial and doubt.

Let's look into WHO is behind this "analysis" shall we?

This paragraph of the PRESS RELEASE (not news) that was linked.

Quote

Avery and Singer noted that there are hundreds of additional peer-reviewed studies that have found cycle evidence, and that they will publish additional researchers' names and studies. They also noted that their book was funded by Wallace O. Sellers, a Hudson board member, without any corporate contributions.
...
For more information, please contact Dennis Avery, Hudson Institute Senior Fellow and co-author of Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years, at 540-337-6354: Email: [email protected]
Hudson Institute

So, who is the "Hudson Institute"?

Checking SourceWatch.org;
Hudson Institute
Hmmm . . . I think we find the "usual suspects" of ExxonMobile ect, but one of the Senior Adviors that caught my eye was none other than . . . I. Lewis Scooter Libby.

Uh . . . ok, I think we can safely put any concept of this "analysis" into the highly biased category.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Again, we see more and more of this propaganda of denial and doubt.

Let's look into WHO is behind this "analysis" shall we?

This paragraph of the PRESS RELEASE (not news) that was linked.

Quote

Avery and Singer noted that there are hundreds of additional peer-reviewed studies that have found cycle evidence, and that they will publish additional researchers' names and studies. They also noted that their book was funded by Wallace O. Sellers, a Hudson board member, without any corporate contributions.
...
For more information, please contact Dennis Avery, Hudson Institute Senior Fellow and co-author of Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years, at 540-337-6354: Email: [email protected]
Hudson Institute

So, who is the "Hudson Institute"?

Checking SourceWatch.org;
Hudson Institute
Hmmm . . . I think we find the "usual suspects" of ExxonMobile ect, but one of the Senior Adviors that caught my eye was none other than . . . I. Lewis Scooter Libby.

Uh . . . ok, I think we can safely put any concept of this "analysis" into the highly biased category.

I guess actually refuting their findings is out of the question, eh?

[AWL71 0]

Propaganda goes both ways. I can quote sources that refute gloabal warming and you can quote sources that confirm global warming. I am all for taking care of the enviroment but I think this country and the world for that matter has many more pressing problems that need our attention.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[quade 3]

Quote

I guess actually refuting their findings is out of the question, eh?

There'e nothing real or substantial to dispute! It's all just propaganda.

I look at the entire endeavor as being suspect from the very beginning.

There is, in fact, a vast campaign going on by the oil companies and others that will continue to profit as long as the status quo remains to spew forth this propaganda of doubt and denial.

It is rather trivial to find scientists that are willing to poke small holes in research done by others (especially if they have a profit motive), but that in no way shape or form means that the basic overall concept is incorrect or that there aren't thousands upon thousands of other scientists that do support the basic concept of man made global climate change.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

I'm a little sick of the term "consensus" being used for things. I, for one, am less interested in "90 percent of scientists agree that we are responsible for global warming."

Instead, I would prefer to see the evidence. For example, the worldwide consensus was that Saddam Hussein was producing and stockpiling WMD's. Ooops. The evidence was shaky, but we moved forward based on a worldwide consensus.

See, "consensus" and "trustworthy" are mutually exclusive. And Iraq shows what happens when we move forward based on "consensus" as opposed to "evidence." Well, there was evidence - "yellowcake." And Colin Powell gave a nice briefing.

And the issue faced was, "We cannot afford to wait to see whether or not Saddam has these weapons. The potential disaster if it is true is WORTH the risk."

And now, more than five years later, consensus of the people is that it is NOT worth it. Well, the consensus put us on this road. And now we gotta dig our way out of it. And there has been a waste of resouces, money and lives.

And those who brought up the shaky evidence were scoffed at and ridiculed.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 3]

Quote

I am all for taking care of the enviroment but I think this country and the world for that matter has many more pressing problems that need our attention.

Short term you may be right, long term I highly doubt it.

Ultimately peace in the Middle East means nothing if, say for instance, 90% of the population of the earth dies due to environmental issues.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

I guess actually refuting their findings is out of the question, eh?

There'e nothing real or substantial to dispute! It's all just propaganda.

Riiiight. We should just your claim without any supporting evidence.

Quote

There is, in fact, a vast campaign going on by the oil companies and others that will continue to profit as long as the status quo remains to spew forth this propaganda of doubt and denial.

It is rather trivial to find scientists that are willing to poke small holes in research done by others (especially if they have a profit motive),

so, what are you saying? That the oil companies are secretly funding all these scientists? That these scientist's conclussions are simply the result of sound research?

Quote

but that in no way shape or form means that the basic overall concept is incorrect or that there aren't thousands upon thousands of other scientists that do support the basic concept of man made global climate change.

Thousands upon thousands of scientists? Are we talking experts on this matter, who have done their own research? Or are you talking about anyone who can honestly be considered a scientist?

If you can actually refute the subject matter and it's implications, I'd be happy to read what you have to say. But this barrage of "don't believe them" rings a bit hollow.

[idrankwhat 0]

Another of Avery's greatest hit jobs:
"The Silent Killer in Organic Foods", saying that people are more susceptible to e. coli poisoning with organic foods and quoted Robert Tauxe at the CDC as his source. Tauxe said he never made that claim and asked Avery to quit using the CDC in his claims. Avery's response was "That's your interpretation, and I have mine."
That doesn't disprove his argument but it does provide insight into the source.

But regarding the GW question, I wonder how many of those papers were recently underwritten by big oil. Didn't Exxon/Mobile get exposed for paying something like $16 million for anti-GW papers?

And lastly, this reminds me of an article that someone showed me earlier today in Chemical and Engineering news.

"Bisphenol A Vexations
Two government-convened panels reach nearly opposite conclusions on compound's health risks."

The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) said that BPA is of great concern. The Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR) said risks are "some concern" and "negligible concern", and only addressed repoductive issues.
...NIEHS. The Chapel Hill group reviewed the entire body of published BPA literature, more than 700 studies. .......CERHR panel relied heavily on an unpublished study by Rochelle W. Tyl, ...... which was funded by the Society of the Plastics Industry.
...Another possible explanation for the conflicting conclusions is that there were different qualifications for membership on the CERHR and Chapel Hill panels. The scientists on the CERHR panel were chosen explicitly because they had never done research on BPA. In contrast, the 38 scientists in the Chapel Hill group convened by NIEHS had all published extensive BPA research.


Oh, and the EPA says that biosolids are good for you. Sometimes you get what you pay for.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Avery and Singer noted that there are hundreds of additional peer-reviewed studies that have found cycle evidence, and that they will publish additional researchers' names and studies. They also noted that their book was funded by Wallace O. Sellers, a Hudson board member, without any corporate contributions.
...
For more information, please contact Dennis Avery, Hudson Institute Senior Fellow and co-author of Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years, at 540-337-6354: Email: [email protected]
Hudson Institute

So, who is the "Hudson Institute"?

Checking SourceWatch.org;
Hudson Institute
Hmmm . . . I think we find the "usual suspects" of ExxonMobile ect, but one of the Senior Adviors that caught my eye was none other than . . . I. Lewis Scooter Libby.

Uh . . . ok, I think we can safely put any concept of this "analysis" into the highly biased category.

Singer's foundation, "The Science and Environmental Policy Project" has received large contributions from Exxon, Shell, ARCO, Unocal, and Sun Oil. When it was RJ Reynolds funding them, they claimed that secondhand smoke posed no health risks. I'm not sure who was funding him when he was arguing that UV-B does not cause skin cancer, but the gist of his argument was that CFCs shouldn't be subject to regulation. Since 1972, he has published exactly one peer-reviewed article on climate change, and that article has been referenced exactly zero times in any other peer-reviewed scientific literature. For what it's worth, it pertained to the climate effects of a nuclear war. His objectivity and credentials aren't particularly persuasive.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Another of Avery's greatest hit jobs:
"The Silent Killer in Organic Foods", saying that people are more susceptible to e. coli poisoning with organic foods and quoted Robert Tauxe at the CDC as his source. Tauxe said he never made that claim and asked Avery to quit using the CDC in his claims. Avery's response was "That's your interpretation, and I have mine."
That doesn't disprove his argument but it does provide insight into the source.

Good point. It goes to the credibility of the individual actually making the claims - the book's author.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

... the worldwide consensus was that Saddam Hussein was producing and stockpiling WMD's.

Not trying to steal the thread, and don't want to but the above statement isn't accurate. I only point it out because I'm a bit concerned in who will be writing the history books that my kid will be reading.

[Loonix 0]

Quote

The evidence was shaky, but we moved forward based on a worldwide consensus.

There's a world outside of the US, and trust me, there wasn't widespread consensus..

Quote

See, "consensus" and "trustworthy" are mutually exclusive. And Iraq shows what happens when we move forward based on "consensus" as opposed to "evidence." Well, there was evidence - "yellowcake." And Colin Powell gave a nice briefing.

"Evidence" fabricated in secrecy, as opposed to that of global warming.

Quote

And the issue faced was, "We cannot afford to wait to see whether or not Saddam has these weapons. The potential disaster if it is true is WORTH the risk."

Using the war analogy, the evidence points to that "we cannot take the chance to not put up an adequate DEFENCE". Reducing pollution causing global warming (or not) is GOOD EITHER WAY. It means STOPPING a radical human-caused global change, rather than initiating one (as you're trying to make it sound like with your offensive war analogy).

...And that's as far as I'll play along on your comparison between global warming and the Iraq war.

[rushmc 18]

Replies like this make me even more confident that I am correct

THANKS

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

I guess actually refuting their findings is out of the question, eh?

There'e nothing real or substantial to dispute! It's all just propaganda.Your proof please

I look at the entire endeavor as being suspect from the very beginning.

There is, in fact, a vast campaign going on by the oil companies and others that will continue to profit as long as the status quo remains to spew forth this propaganda of doubt and denial.

It is rather trivial to find scientists that are willing to poke small holes in research done by others (especially if they have a profit motive), but that in no way shape or form means that the basic overall concept is incorrect or that there aren't thousands upon thousands of other scientists that do support the basic concept of man made global climate change.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 3]

Quote

Replies like this make me even more confident that I am correct

THANKS

I can't help it if you can't see actual evidence as opposed to the propaganda you've been fed. I can't help it if you can't tell a credible source from a paid shill.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 3]

Quote

There'e nothing real or substantial to dispute! It's all just propaganda.Your proof please

The "proof" is the credibility of the persons in question and who pays them. I believe if you actually read what has been written about them by others as linked to in the second message in this thread you'd be able to see that.

It's like calling out to the chicken coop and asking if everything is alright and hearing a fox yell back, "Yep! Everything's just fine in here!"

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

There'e nothing real or substantial to dispute! It's all just propaganda.Your proof please

The "proof" is the credibility of the persons in question and who pays them.

So, previously you were actually saying Scooter Libby financed this book? That's what you were saying? Or was that just a red herring?

[piper17 1]

Can someone point out ONE scientist that is NOT supported by one interest group or the other - liberal or conservative.

Universities get grants from liberal organizations that go to professors/scientists who will tout theories that argue what that liberal organization espouses just as conservative organizations will support professors/scientists that will espouse theories that support their point of view.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Can someone point out ONE scientist that is NOT supported by one interest group or the other - liberal or conservative.

Universities get grants from liberal organizations that go to professors/scientists who will tout theories that argue what that liberal organization espouses just as conservative organizations will support professors/scientists that will espouse theories that support their point of view.

And researchers/professors/scientists will continue to recieve funding as long as their research supports the agenda of those backers.

Excellent point, piper.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Replies like this make me even more confident that I am correct

THANKS

I can't help it if you can't see actual evidence as opposed to the propaganda you've been fed. I can't help it if you can't tell a credible source from a paid shill.

Go get the 100 grand if you have the EVIDENCE pal. I will not hold my breath

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

There'e nothing real or substantial to dispute! It's all just propaganda.Your proof please

The "proof" is the credibility of the persons in question and who pays them. I believe if you actually read what has been written about them by others as linked to in the second message in this thread you'd be able to see that.

It's like calling out to the chicken coop and asking if everything is alright and hearing a fox yell back, "Yep! Everything's just fine in here!"

I am still waiting for PROOF

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Loonix 0]

Quote

I am still waiting for PROOF

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=21429&Cr=climate&Cr1=change

http://www.ipcc.ch/about/faq.htm

It comes down to wether you trust the UN scientists, or those sponsored by Exxon et. al. It's all about credibility of a source. Scientists have proved that McDonalds food is good for you. Said scientists were sponsored by McDonalds. Using this analogy, what you're asking for, is that every other scientist has to disprove each such report, or else you'll "have no proof" that such fastfood is bad for you.

Or is it that "Evidence is now 'unequivocal' that humans are causing global warming - UN report" does not sound convincing enough? The probability is estimated to 90% that there is a man-made global warming. If you want to bet against those odds, I wouldn't take up gambling, if I were you. And believe me, the stakes are high.

edit reason: typo..

[sv3n 0]

Ok....then go with some common sense.

Take a fishbowl, it contains one fish, a cup of sand, and a gallon of water............now add toxic chemicals to the water and put a cup of garbage under the sand. What happens to the fish?

Or put yourself in a garage with your car......close all the garage doors and leave the car running while you're standing next to it and make sure there's a large ficus in there with you to filter the air. If it's ok then you will be fine.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[AWL71 0]

That convinced me...global warming must be real....

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.