Originally posted by Ushgarak
Fact is, fossil fuel companies often will fund such causes for good PR; it has no discernable effect on the objectivity of group members.
its a blatant conflict of interests.
sure those scientists may choose to keep it honest and objective,
but i think it would be pretty obtuse to just ignore the 'cooincidences'
The answer to your question, Whirly?....because these scientists are all a bunch of morons. It is very visible to the average human being that global warming is in effect, albeit at a slow rate....and, we humans are mostly responsible for it, even if the earth is also going through a natural warming cycle.
Originally posted by PVS
its a blatant conflict of interests.
sure those scientists may choose to keep it honest and objective,
but i think it would be pretty obtuse to just ignore the 'cooincidences'
This kind of logic is ridiculous. Fossil fuel companies will give money to climate change boards to show they are interested and not abrogating their responisiblites. Such bodies will get funding from the green lobby as well. It's idiocy to reject anyone on such a body just because, working in an industry related field, that industry supplies money. You would have to lose the testimony of just about every expert voice there is if you did.
If they are a spokesperson for an industry, or in some similar way paid to represent industry interests, then you have a conflict.
Else you are just witchhunting experts out of the debate.
And bobby- you are wrong on both counts, it's not visible at all, nor is it provable to reasonable standards.
Ushgarak, it has been proven/shown that several different species of fish, frogs, toads, some bugs/insects, etc....whose infancy is very closely related to temperature in these early stages of life, have suddenly become extinct. These same species have been around for THOUSANDS or HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of years. We are not talking extinction by a cataclismic event such as a meteor or asteroid colliding with our planet.
Yes, I could be reaching on the natural warming cycle of the planet, but that's the rebuttal that's always given when politicians or environmentalists don't wish to take responsibility.
Let's remind of some simple facts here, Bobby:
1. It has not been proven to a reasonable standard that the Earth is warming. Sources conflict.
2. It has not been proven to a reasonable standard that any man-made activity could contribute towards warming
There could be plentiful reasons for the phenemenon you espouse. Fact is, without reasonable proof of point 1, your original statement is wrong.
And saying that is the rebuttal always given... is a statement of no value. That it is always given means it's not true does it? That would be the belief of a moron. Look at the science involved, that is all you can do. The science does not favour your statement.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
This kind of logic is ridiculous. Fossil fuel companies will give money to climate change boards to show they are interested and not abrogating their responisiblites. Such bodies will get funding from the green lobby as well. It's idiocy to reject anyone on such a body just because, working in an industry related field, that industry supplies money. You would have to lose the testimony of just about every expert voice there is if you did.If they are a spokesperson for an industry, or in some similar way paid to represent industry interests, then you have a conflict.
Else you are just witchhunting experts out of the debate.
And bobby- you are wrong on both counts, it's not visible at all, nor is it provable to reasonable standards.
in the case of direct funding, i disagree. money talks and i really dont feel like debating that, as i dont wish to debate whether the sky is blue. im not saying the studies are bias 'just because', but rather that i am skeptical. unless you mean to imply that all or most studies on environmental change are at least partially funded by petrolium companies, how can you not be suspicious?.
just as tobacco companies managed to dig up scientists in the early 20'th century to say that smoking was healthy, then mid century to say its not unhealthy, i do not trust studies directly funded by the very industry which is under scrutiny.
Most or all are funded by those with vested interest, that's the end result of it. Unless there is a direct association, you are simply being unreasonable- close to immoral, in fact- to discount expert opinion for that reason.
I'll tell you this- a court of law would sure as hell see it as expert opinion, with no reservations.
I guarantee you, if you tried to reduce the field to those who have never been invovled in a project that received funding from a vested interest on either side, you would be left with so few experts as to make the process of expert consultation pointless.
Originally posted by shaber
Surely the increases in the atmosphere of both carbon dioxide and artificial compounds which also have insulating effects will make the biosphere more of a greenhouse?
Debatable point 1- whether the amount of carbon needed to fulfill this phenomenon could ever occur. Early predictions on the amounts needed and the effects it would have have already been shown to be wrong.
Debatable point 2- whether MAN would be the contributor in any significant fashion to any such change of atmospheric composition. Much evidence points to Man's efforts being a tiny pinprick compared to nature's.
Originally posted by UshgarakFossil fuel conglomerates specifically funding research in order to disseminate information opposing the existence of global warming is as much conflict of interest as tobacco companies funding research into the non-existence of lung cancer. Impropriety does not have to exist for conflict of interest to exist.
Most or all are funded by those with vested interest, that's the end result of it. Unless there is a direct association, you are simply being unreasonable- close to immoral, in fact- to discount expert opinion for that reason.I'll tell you this- a court of law would sure as hell see it as expert opinion, with no reservations.
I guarantee you, if you tried to reduce the field to those who have never been invovled in a project that received funding from a vested interest on either side, you would be left with so few experts as to make the process of expert consultation pointless.
Legality only comes into play if it can be proven that the person or body in question has exploited their position to exert an influence for personal gain.
Science+corporate money=bullshit.
Does anyone remember the Exxon/proctor and gamble funded school curriculum called "Decision Earth"?
"Clear cutting removes all trees within a stand of a few species to create new habitat for wildlife... Clear cutting also opens the forest floor to sunshine, thus stimulating growth and providing food for animals."
Or how it called garbage incineration "thermal recycling". A slogan Waste Management inc. is still using.
Here's a better link- http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/beder/story.htm
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
yup🙂 Temperature data is flawed, this is just one way - don't get me onto UBI and early records of the 20th Century 😉March 9, 2004
European Hotties
Filed under: Health Effects, Heat Waves —
Summer 2003 may or may not have been Western Europe’s hottest on record. But Europeans should have seen it coming and adapted as Americans have.Whether or not the summer of 2003 was the hottest on record in Western Europe we may never know. But the heat itself should not have taken Europeans by surprise.
The original research on seasonal temperature changes appeared in the March 5 issue of Science. After reconstructing Western Europe’s seasonal temperature history since the year 1500, a team of Swiss climate scientists headed by Jurg Lauterbacher concluded that summer 2003 was the warmest since the beginning of their reconstruction; the second-warmest summer was about 250 years ago in 1757. (Interestingly, they also determined that winter 2002-2003 was below the average winter temperature of the 20th century, and that only two of the 25 coldest winters have occurred since 1950.)
As warm as 2003 was, probable errors in the early records should have led to a much softer conclusion about whether it was the all-time warmest ever. Yet once again, the reviewers at Science seem reluctant to temper their contributors’ overly strong statements about climate change. (World Climate Report recently discussed some obvious flaws in a 2002 Science paper on Mt. Kilimanjaro.
Figure 1 shows the reconstructed European summer temperatures since 1500, based upon thermometer records and temperature proxies. Thermometer records become increasingly sparse as the record goes back in time (there are none before 1659). “Proxy” records, such as tree rings, become more important in the early part of this history. Such records usually only capture between a quarter and a half of the true inter-summer temperature change, resulting in large potential errors. Lauterbacher et al. note these quite well, but don’t emphasize the uncertainty that proxy records impose—uncertainties that include whether one summer, 2003, was in fact hotter than any other in their reconstructed record.
Evidence for GW on any level is highly flawed. Record Coldsnap in Greece as we speak!!
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Evidence for GW on any level is highly flawed. Record Coldsnap in Greece as we speak!!
not to mention the "evidence" for the melting of the polar ice caps...even though just last the group who carry out the long term study of the antarctic have announced that the centre of the ice cap has increasingly thicker ice...although they do say that many of the areas which are thickening because they used to be too cold for snow and that increasing temperatures have brought about a larger snowfall than is historically known...
strangely enough...they calculated the snowfall to the 45 billion tonnes per year...the same that is melting from the greenland glaciers
Originally posted by jaden101
not to mention the "evidence" for the melting of the polar ice caps...
Source: www.NASA.gov
Originally posted by xmarksthespotSource: www.NASA.gov
pay attention sunshine...the ice in the middle is thicker to the same extent the the ice at the edges has receeded...hence the polar caps arent getting smaller by mass
Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
can you give a link?? or some pics please jaden101... cause those ones xmarks gave arn't 3d....
all one needs to do is ask
Ian Joughin of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Slawek Tulaczyk of the University of California at Santa Cruz report a net gain of 26.8 billion tons per year. This represents about a quarter of the annual snow accumulation.
from new scientist...a very reputable source