Not too long ago, there was a mumble discussion about climate change and how the vast majority of the scientist are in agreement of our impending doom. Well in celebration of Earth Day which happened this week, I found this interesting article on all the predictions of our doomed planet from the first Earth Day that well were all completely wrong.
As someone who has worked rather close with academics, it should be noted that they can be the most singularly closed minded group of people you will ever meet. The process of peer reviewed publications makes it difficult for anyone who thinks out side of the "pack mentality" to voice a differing opinion. The number of "scientist" quoted in the above article speaks volumes to how sensationalistic and dead WRONG, they can be.
It is not my viewpoint that the environment is nothing to worry about, however, I think that a VAST majority of the information that is put out there is sensationalistic nonsense.
Just a thought. Belated Happy Earth Day!
Last edited by Obeliska/Tavie on 04/25/2015 1:48 am; edited 1 time in total
Well I don't claim any first-hand knowledge on the climate change debate, and I'd maybe even be a little hesitant to take a side in it because of that, but I definitely do recognize that there's a difference between singular claims by outlier scientists such as the ones in that article (an entire third of them were claims from this same guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Ehrlich, three of them were from this guy: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110205131917AAN5NL5, and 4 others were from non-scientists), and an almost unanimous scientific consensus in a certain field. I'm not say that consensus is necessarily RIGHT, I'm just saying there's a big difference.
Some AEI staff and fellows have been critical of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the international scientific body tasked to evaluate the risk of climate change caused by human activity. In February 2007, a number of sources, including the British newspaper The Guardian, reported that the AEI had sent letters to scientists offering $10,000 plus travel expenses and additional payments, asking them to critique the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. This offer has been criticized as bribery. The letters alleged that the IPCC was "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent, and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work" and asked for essays that "thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs".
According to the Guardian article, the AEI received $1.6 million in funding from ExxonMobil. The article further notes that former ExxonMobil CEO Lee R. Raymond is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees. This story was repeated by Newsweek, which drew criticism from its contributing editor Robert J. Samuelson because "this accusation was long ago discredited, and Newsweek shouldn't have lent it respectability. (The company says it knew nothing of the global-warming grant, which involved issues of climate modeling. And its 2006 contribution to the think tank, the American Enterprise Institute, was small: $240,000 out of a $28 million budget.)" The Guardian article was disputed both by AEI and in an editorial in the Wall Street Journal. The rebuttals claimed factual errors and distortions, noting the ExxonMobil funding was spread out over a ten-year period and totaled less than 1% of AEI's budget.
Now it says that the money from exxon didn't contribute more then 1% of the funding, but what if that 1%(1.6 million) went into the pockets of a select few...
Why would a company like exxon fund it to begin with? No matter how small a contribution, do you think they would have anything to gain by finding that fossil fuels are contributing to climate change?
Of course not, the obviously helped "fund" this with the intent on making sure it had a positive impact on the company.
I find it interesting that you think peer reviewed scientific research is trumped by an article from a conservative think tank which get's millions of dollars of funding from Koch Industries and Exxon Mobile to try as hard as they can to "discredit" climate change claims because these donors profit from burning carbon. Also, this article does not make a single argument or provide a single piece of evidence from anywhere. There's no sources, no research, no math, no science, no claims are even made. You're confusing a person supporting your opinion for evidence. If you want to inform yourself on the issues, try reading people who bother compiling the data: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
What really worries me is you think a collection of 18 unsourced and potentially out of context quotes from 45 years ago, a time when climate science was in its infancy, is actually evidence that the vast majority of information "out there" is sensationalist nonsense. I quoted "out there" because I'm not really sure what that means. Is the IPCC report sensationalist nonsense? NASA as well? Clearly none of these agency or bodies are trustworthy and we should be listening to the guy who works for the oil companies. It wasn't long ago similar cronies said cigarettes were fine too. I mean, you didn't immediately notice problems with your system, therefor none existed. It's just basic logic.
What a collection of eco-ideologues we have here. I was not trying to say anything definitively on climate change, but rather the sensationalistic things said on the first Earth Day, since we just celebrated yet another. Most of you children weren't alive during the first Earth Day, I was and remember quite vividly the doom and gloom tone of the speakers. You would have to be a moron to ignore the reality that people from the left or right say sensationalistic things when they are trying to get peoples attention. What makes it sensationalistic is not the ideological corner that it comes from, but rather the actual claim or statement itself. As was the case in the article.
I hope you mental midgets are wise enough to listen/read what others have to say even if they are funded by someone you think of as an ideological opposite. Is Hillary Clinton no longer viable as a presidential candidate because she broke the law while Secretary of State regarding her emails or the fact she took money from foreign governments? I mean if we are going to discredit people simply because of who they get money from.. its game over for her. Then again, hypocrisy is a common thing among the political activist types. I suppose we shouldn't support any thing George Soros throws his money at either, I mean he is a socialist, he must be as bad as the rightwing nutcase Koch Brothers the lefties fear so much. In my opinion it is the weak minded who attack the messenger and not the message. Ideas for better or worse should stand on their own.
The article I linked was from a conservative think tank, its point was most likely to take a jab at the eco nutcases for some of the crazy things they say. In this case, they earned it. Most of those quotes stand on their own, you can like it or not because you feel your ideology is being attacked.. but those people did say those things. I posted it because it was demonstrative of the outlandish things people say to make political hay and it was Earth Day.
Now on to the meat of the issue, Climate Change itself. There are a lot of things said about the state of the climate. I find the difficult thing to explain is mankind's true impact on the climate itself. There is a phrase commonly used in science "correlation does not mean causation." In my research, limited though it might be, I find very little science that shows man's carbon emissions are causing a significant impact on the climate. I have viewed many websites from both sides of the political spectrum, I found this one the most interesting and science oriented. It is run by Dr. John C. Everett, a scientist that has worked with IPCC, testified before congress, etc. From what I have seen, probably the most balanced presentation of real science on the issue (It should be noted that its not conclusive, just presents both sides as it were).
With respect to the question I raised about mankind's impact vis-a-vis CO2 emissions, the site says that the measured science is at odds with the modeled science. Modelers feel they demonstrate mans impact, where the guy who actually measured CO2 in the atmosphere showed there has been no change. It has been suggested that the models significantly underestimate the planets ability to absorb CO2. I am not trying to say that either has the definitive answer, but rather, as is often the case, science hasn't really found the answer yet. If you are interested in the topic give it read and take from it what you will.
P.S. Kreegan .. "out there" just means swimming around in the various mediums of communication (Internet, TV, Radio. etc.)
P.S.S Qual .. My point about the peer-reviewed culture of academics was not that the AEL trumped them, but rather the commonly repeated statement that this HUGE PERCENTAGE scientist agree comment is hyperbole rather than substantive. The site I linked above makes an interesting point that not only do all scientist not agree, but scientist from relevant fields of expertise are not included in the analysis. Furthermore, as I stated in my OP, from personal experience I know that the academic environment is not one of intellectual open mindedness. If you don't agree with what the "commonly held belief is", you don't get to publish (not just on climate change, but any field really). I say this not to be persuasive but to further explain why I find the "scientist agree" line hyperbole.
It must be the gospel truth because this video says it is. Would it not be reasonable to assume that there is a vast left wing conspiracy to persuade people that carbon emissions are the devil and must be eliminated because eco-fascist want to destroy capitalism?
This kind troll fodder is just deflection from dealing with the real science on climate change. I mean when you can't muster a strong, cohesive point to contribute to the debate, lets just blame a conspiracy of some sort. The best way to show you have no idea what the hell your talking about is the call the other side a liar, conspirator, or just claim "they" are out to get you!
A vast left wing conspiracy? lol. Let's take two scenarios: First is scientists, workers unions, college professors, and civil rights activists etc. all getting together and secretly plotting behind closed doors to trick people that we should divest from burning fossil fuels because it harms the environment. Second scenario is the well documented and logically obvious one where multi-billion dollar companies spend money on lobbying and financing think-tanks to buy corrupt politicians and write psuedo-science articles in an effort to keep burning fuel. Which one is simpler? Do you think they would simply lie down and let people end their entire business scheme? It's pretty hard to keep secrets in this world, and I'm pretty sure if liberals everywhere were plotting climate tom-foolery, we would have more than a think-tank with Dick Cheney on the board of trustees to break the story. What is the conspiracy, you say? To develop clean energy technology and make the world a better place? For... nothing? WHAT is the purpose of a climate change conspiracy? Who gains from this conspiracy? What even is your argument?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum