And The Point of Live Earth Was?

[Old Greg]

Ok ignore the Canada Free Press one and debunk the others, although I think you will be hard pressed to find a journalist backed publication that has not talked balls at one point in time. The fact that they are quoting respected scientists leads me to belive that the article i posted is not made up tosh like the one you have posted above.


(We all know it was the US government and not the mob!!!)

Fair enough - that's why I wasn't going to give you a hard time about this one, but they're proper nutters who are not looking to present a balanced opinion.

(the US government is the mob, stoopid!)

[Ardesco]

(the US government is the mob, stoopid!)

Not heard them called that before, I guess I am ouch of touch with slang levied at americans...

[Old Greg]

Most people have an agenda when it comes to global warming, to either make everybody belive it is true, or make everybody belive it is not true. The fact of the matter remains that there are a core group of well respected scientists that do not subscribe to the current "global warming is all our fault" theories, unfortunatly these people never make it into the media because they are pushing an agenda that is frowned upon rich government who are using global warming as a stick to beat us with.

But that's the point of peer reviewed science: it subjects other scientists' methodology, data, analysis and conlusions to independent criticism. Mrs OG gets plenty of ruthless criticism and questions from peer reviewers when she's publishing papers, and that's the way it should be.

A think tank with an agenda simply isn't independent in that way.

Let me give an example:

Scenario: old vaccination on the market and there's concern that it has side effects. What would you trust:

Peer reviewed science paper, or
Organisation with an agenda (anti-vaccination, drug company, government department).

That's not to say that the science paper will always be right, just that it's a better way of getting to a scientifically accurate position. It's not to say that the organisations won't try to influence science papers, but the peer review system is the best way of resisting this influence.

If you accept this, look at the balance of proper peer-reviewed evidence on each side. Look at the balance of senior respected scientists who line up on either side. Make your choice accordingly and keep your fingers crossed that you haven't either potentially f8cked up the climate by ignoring GW or f8cked up the economy by believing it.

[Ardesco]

The problem is that there is great pressure on scientists to say that global warming is real in order for them to get thier nice big research budgets. There is no real consesus that global warming is real despite lots of people saying there is. If you repeat a lie for long enoght people will belive it is the truth....

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

and this person is a quite well respected scientist in the field.

[Old Greg]

The problem is that there is great pressure on scientists to say that global warming is real in order for them to get thier nice big research budgets. There is no real consesus that global warming is real despite lots of people saying there is. If you repeat a lie for long enoght people will belive it is the truth....

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

and this person is a quite well respected scientist in the field.

You've found a respected qualified scientist who disagrees. You'll always get this in this type of science. Look at where the balance lies.

This research budget business suggests there is a giant conspiracy - there's simply no evidence of this (why would anyone bother - I'd much rather there was no global warming). Scientists are a pretty robust independent bunch and in my experience don't say, OK, I want the research grant so I'll falsify the data and publish lies.

[gingerjedi]

You've found a respected qualified scientist who disagrees. You'll always get this in this type of science. Look at where the balance lies.

This research budget business suggests there is a giant conspiracy - there's simply no evidence of this (why would anyone bother - I'd much rather there was no global warming). Scientists are a pretty robust independent bunch and in my experience don't say, OK, I want the research grant so I'll falsify the data and publish lies.

That’s the bit I can't get my head around, you would think the oil industry would mount a massive counter argument but instead they advertise their green credentials and how they are looking for new ways to produce energy Unless they have a vested interest in conserving oil because as soon as they lower production the price goes up so in the long run they are protecting their interests by going along with it.... hmm, sneaky

[Old Greg]

That’s the bit I can't get my head around, you would think the oil industry would mount a massive counter argument but instead they advertise their green credentials and how they are looking for new ways to produce energy Unless they have a vested interest in conserving oil because as soon as they lower production the price goes up so in the long run they are protecting their interests by going along with it.... hmm, sneaky

Well they're obviously up to something but what?

Perhaps they've not been able to mount a massive counter-argument because there isn't one - but they could sow the seeds of doubt, I suppose.

The green credentials are a cynical marketing / branding tactic.

The oil will run out so they need to conserve their commercial positions of supplying sources of energy.

[Ardesco]

You've found a respected qualified scientist who disagrees. You'll always get this in this type of science. Look at where the balance lies.

This research budget business suggests there is a giant conspiracy - there's simply no evidence of this (why would anyone bother - I'd much rather there was no global warming). Scientists are a pretty robust independent bunch and in my experience don't say, OK, I want the research grant so I'll falsify the data and publish lies.

Which means that I have a quite valid argument. Do I really have to go through all this malarky every time i have a dissenting opinion?

I still stand by my guns and say that I don't agree global warming is proven yet and that there are other possibilites which may be correct. The fact that the media doesn't give much air time to the dissenting opinions does not help, but that doesn't mean that they aren't there.

[pisces]

The scientists most likely to be lying are the ones that back up The Government.

hth.