Reply to: And The Point of Live Earth Was?

[pisces]

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

hth.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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 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]

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]

Cato Institute looks more serious than Canada Free Press, but it's a think tank with an agenda. It's different from a peer reviewed scientific journal.

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.

[Ardesco]

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!!!)

[Old Greg]

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/.../reg15n2g.html

http://www.cato.org/dailys/6-30-97.html

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

Go ahead and dispute all of them as well.

Cato Institute looks more serious than Canada Free Press, but it's a think tank with an agenda. It's different from a peer reviewed scientific journal.

[Old Greg]

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/.../reg15n2g.html

http://www.cato.org/dailys/6-30-97.html

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

Go ahead and dispute all of them as well.

Let's leave Canada Free Press out of this - the publication that brought us (full story at: http://web.archive.org/web/200508080...over071105.htm )

Cover Story
9/11 and the mob
By Judi McLeod & David Hawkins
Monday, July 11, 2005

Toronto-- In the true life stranger than fiction category, Cantor Fitzgerald Securities and its subsidiary eSpeed network are one for the books.

Cantor Fitzgerald’s New York office, on the 101st-105th floors of One World Trade Center, lost 685 employees in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks–more than any other employer. Its e-Speed electronic bond-trading network lost 125 souls.

Happily for the disciples of "Kyoto Mo" (Canadian Maurice Strong), who argues that global climate change is driven by anthropogenic gases emitted by inhabitants of the Anglosphere, a six-member eSpeed carbon-credit trading team escaped death. Their annual one-day fishing trip had to be cancelled about 8 a.m. on the fateful morning of September 11, due to alleged bad weather over the Atlantic. Can anyone confirm the weather? New York looked pretty sunny.

Hearing that the Twin Towers had been hit, the six lucky fishers hightailed it to New Jersey, to what Joseph Noviello, executive vice president said of Rochelle Park, N.J., "where we had duplicates of everything that was destroyed at our offices in the world Trade Center."

Not only did the six execs happen to have a WTC duplicate to turn to, but by napping on the floor, including one who grabbed shuteye by resting his head on an overturned coffee cup, they got an electronic trading operation up and running within two days of the tragic events. (http://web.archive.org/web/200508080...2-bcovmon.htm).

[... to end of article]

A redux conclusion: It is even possible that this is not mob related?

If this is mob, did the mob know of the impending attack on 9/11? The terrorist-piloted plane hit Cantor Fitzgerald directly–one floor below where they were located. This would be the worst possible spot because the flames would go up and engulf everything. Could this really be only sheer coincidence? No suicide jockey flying a plane for the first time coincidentally hit right where the mob knew they would hit.

What are the odds of a six-member executive team surviving the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center while almost 800 of their employees burned or jumped 103 stories to their death?

The plane had to be aimed very carefully which implies GPS and targeting not a nut flying for the first time.

Do you buy the story that they found Mohammed Atta’s suicide note and luggage, including a will but not two black boxes?

Canada Free Press did.

Not anymore.

[Ardesco]

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/.../reg15n2g.html

http://www.cato.org/dailys/6-30-97.html

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

Go ahead and dispute all of them as well.

[dang65]

The same sort of fantasy machine that will stop us producing CO2 and Methane...

That fantasy machine already exists and it only requires a very short training course to use it. It's called an "off button".

We are never going to agree because you are saying that CO2 is what caused the cycle in the first place and now it's never going to stop, whereas I'm saying anything could have caused the cycle and CO2 is a convenient scapegoat which can be used to point the finger of blame at us.

I think you'll find that most scientists are saying, "It's never going to stop, unless we stop it." Subtle difference like.

As for saying "anything could have caused the cycle"... do you think that decades of research and consensus amongst thousands of scientists have actually completely missed the real cause and just pulled greenhouse gas out of a hat? Who else is saying that except for you? Has that theory appeared in any peer reviewed publication?