PDA

View Full Version : The conneciton between denialism and Exxon



wilbur
07-31-2009, 02:31 PM
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/exxonmobil-report-smoke.html



A report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue. According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.


Direct link to report pdf: http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf


Interesting stuff.... though I'm sure few here will actually do anything other than dismiss this report immediately.

Here's my challenge: Can any of you actually muster up enough integrity to actually consider this information with an open mind?

Lars1701a
07-31-2009, 02:33 PM
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/exxonmobil-report-smoke.html



Direct link to report pdf: http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf


Interesting stuff.... though I'm sure few here will actually do anything other than dismiss this report immediately.

Here's my challenge: Can any of you actually muster up enough integrity to actually consider this information with an open mind?

Whats the point?


GW drones just want to cripple this country, no other country is going to do a blessed thing to stop GW.


When you can come up with a product thats as good or better then oil then we can discuss GW.

Lars1701a
07-31-2009, 02:36 PM
Ya the title is real impartial and non biased lol.


Just another group of eco whack jobs.

wilbur
07-31-2009, 02:40 PM
Let me repeat this part of my post for effect:



Interesting stuff.... though I'm sure few here will actually do anything other than dismiss this report immediately.

Lars1701a
07-31-2009, 02:42 PM
Let me repeat this part of my post for effect:

When you put up such a biased report from a looney eco whack job site you get what you get.

patriot45
07-31-2009, 02:58 PM
Let me repeat this part of my post for effect:

But I do dismiss your findings out of hand because of the sole reason that I believe its not true! The same way you will dismiss my beliefs!
As I said before lets just argue about it for the next ten years without bankcrupting the economy and by that time we can argue about glowball cooling again!

Hoax! (http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/)



We don't dispute that there may have been some global warming since the turn of the century. Even though it is quite likely some of the measurements were distorted and there is still some dispute over whether we've really warmed at all (see ”If The Globe Is Warming Why Are The Oceans Not?” and ”The Earth may have actually COOLED in the past 60 years!”. But we'll assume for a minute that the earth really has warmed 0.7°C in the past 100 years. That is certainly within the realm of natural variability. Below are links to peer reviewed and/or major scientific journal articles backing the case for a natural cause for global warming. Man has always blamed other men (and women) for bad weather. Medieval peasants burned people at the stake believing that they were witches causing the bad weather. Lets not be so ignorant this time around. The earth goes through warming and cooling cycles, this is just one of them (one of the milder one's I might add).

FlaGator
07-31-2009, 03:00 PM
Pretty much like wilbur dismisses any source that contradicts his position. Pot meet kettle.

Only pro global warming are are accurate in his mind.

Lars1701a
07-31-2009, 03:04 PM
But I do dismiss your findings out of hand because of the sole reason that I believe its not true! The same way you will dismiss my beliefs!
As I said before lets just argue about it for the next ten years without bankcrupting the economy and by that time we can argue about glowball cooling again!

Hoax! (http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/)

Your faith in GW is much like my faith in God you dismiss one but you expect me to subcribe to yours?

wilbur
07-31-2009, 03:05 PM
When you put up such a biased report from a looney eco whack job site you get what you get.

I'd wager that anything less than absolute denialist zealotry would cause you to label anyone or any group as "looney eco whack jobs".

Like most of the others in your camp, you take an a priori position that AGW is false. Its elevated to the status of an axiom. Any information that challenges the position is automatically considered tainted, and any source that provides said information is impugned.

Which, of course, is by design...

wilbur
07-31-2009, 03:06 PM
Pretty much like wilbur dismisses any source that contradicts his position. Pot meet kettle.

Only pro global warming are are accurate in his mind.

Where is your proof? I certainly don't dismiss contrarian claims, I attempt to answer them.

Lars1701a
07-31-2009, 03:06 PM
I'd wager that anything less than absolute denialist zealotry would cause you to label anyone or any group as "looney eco whack jobs".

Like most of the others in your camp, you take an a priori position that AGW is false. Its elevated to the status of an axiom. Any information that challenges the position is automatically considered tainted, and any source that provides said information is impugned.

Which, of course, is by design...

Like I said I dont believe in GW like you dont believe in God. They are both taken on faith.


You act just like that with faith in God lol

Lars1701a
07-31-2009, 03:12 PM
I dont reject the proof out of hand.


I see what you GW nut jobs want to do to correct the "problem" which will distroy a already shacky econ. Sorry try again.

wilbur
07-31-2009, 03:12 PM
Like I said I dont believe in GW like you dont believe in God. They are both taken on faith.

:rolleyes:

My position on God is not 'faith based'.... but its good to know your position on AGW is :D

But either way, your post is a fallacy of relevance (as are some others here).



A tu quoque argument attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting his failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. It is considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the party itself, rather than its positions.[1]

wilbur
07-31-2009, 03:16 PM
I dont reject the proof out of hand.


I see what you GW nut jobs want to do to correct the "problem" which will distroy a already shacky econ. Sorry try again.

It doesnt make sense to claim that AGW is false, or that the science is bad, because you don't like the policies that that some people have proposed to address it. This is basic stuff here.

Lars1701a
07-31-2009, 03:18 PM
It doesnt make sense to claim that AGW is false, or that the science is bad, because you don't like the policies that that some people have proposed to address it. This is basic stuff here.

Well if you know the people want to cripple the country, why would you take anything the say as truth? or just want to make a ton of money (like with Al Gore)

Gingersnap
07-31-2009, 03:33 PM
raised doubts about even the most indisputable scientific evidence

funded an array of front organizations to create the appearance of a broad platform for a tight-knit group of vocal climate change contrarians who misrepresent peer-reviewed scientific findings

attempted to portray its opposition to action as a positive quest for "sound science" rather than [political] self-interest

Sounds a lot like the activities of the "Union of Concerned Scientists", doesn't it?

lacarnut
07-31-2009, 03:42 PM
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/exxonmobil-report-smoke.html



Direct link to report pdf: http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf


Interesting stuff.... though I'm sure few here will actually do anything other than dismiss this report immediately.

Here's my challenge: Can any of you actually muster up enough integrity to actually consider this information with an open mind?

I have an open mind so I went to the web site of Union for Concerned Scientists. A catchy little tittle there. From there, I checked out their position on Nuclear power. Guess what; they don't think that the government should provide any funding plus they have doubts about the dangers and the environment and more blah, blah. Evidently none of these so called Scientists come from the EU, Russia or China because countries like France have built many nuke plants in their country. Most Scientist think Nuke power is safe. Why not the eco-nuts?

Conclusion: when you provide us with an article from a liberal nut organization, you have to do a little research to ascertain whether they have an agenda. Looks that way to me. Now, if they were really concerned about the environment, they would attack the manufacturers of Ethanol for the pollution that they spew in the air. FYI, the EPA agreed to raise the pollution rate so that Ethanol manufacturers would be in compliance. However, that would not fit the liberal mold. So their hit piece on big bad Exxon holds no water cause they have no creditability. Now, if you have a mind at all, you can not dispute the facts stated above.

Molon Labe
07-31-2009, 03:55 PM
[url]Here's my challenge: Can any of you actually muster up enough integrity to actually consider this information with an open mind?


Yes.
It wouldn't surprise me that a corporation would use the same propaganda techniques to try to frame the debate in a light that is favorable to them.

FlaGator
07-31-2009, 04:05 PM
Where is your proof? I certainly don't dismiss contrarian claims, I attempt to answer them.

You never answered Constitutionally Speaking after he pointed out to you that Jefferson's downplaying of Christian beliefs can late in his life after he experienced much tragedy. You even changed him to the dome and as far as I am aware you never showed up.

As for your answering of contradictory point of views, you do this but often with no supporting evidence. You have done this to me serveral times. When asked for supporting evidence you recite your own subjective views. Can you point out a instance when you came to the conclusion that you were wrong about something? I'm not talking a little admission here or there to some fine point or another. I don't recall you ever stating that your opinion of anything has changed.

stsinner
07-31-2009, 04:11 PM
Like most of the others in your camp, you take an a priori position that AGW is false..

So you actually think that global warming is real? I had to use my pellet stove in July, but the planet is getting warmer? Wow, you're really braindead/brainwashed..

People are waking up to this farce that is nothing less than a power/money grab.. People stand to make millions off of cap and trade, but since the trend is actually global cooling, (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,333328,00.html) and people were getting wise, they had to change the name to Climate Change.. Because the climate will change, and they're going to blame it on us and charge us for it.

FlaGator
07-31-2009, 04:14 PM
:rolleyes:

My position on God is not 'faith based'.... but its good to know your position on AGW is :D

But either way, your post is a fallacy of relevance (as are some others here).

Sure it is. The point is in dispute. Since the point it in dispute and you can't bring the the evidence to the table to win the argument then you are operating on the belief that you are correct and that is called faith.

lacarnut
07-31-2009, 04:19 PM
You never answered Constitutionally Speaking after he pointed out to you that Jefferson's downplaying of Christian beliefs can late in his life after he experienced much tragedy. You even changed him to the dome and as far as I am aware you never showed up.

As for your answering of contradictory point of views, you do this but often with no supporting evidence. You have done this to me serveral times. When asked for supporting evidence you recite your own subjective views. Can you point out a instance when you came to the conclusion that you were wrong about something? I'm not talking a little admission here or there to some fine point or another. I don't recall you ever stating that your opinion of anything has changed.

Maybe we should put him on the ignore list also. These dumb ass liberals like to sling poo to see if it sticks and then run off and hide when they get their ass kicked. Then they start up another thread or change the subject.

wilbur
07-31-2009, 04:27 PM
Sure it is. The point is in dispute. Since the point it in dispute and you can't bring the the evidence to the table to win the argument then you are operating on the belief that you are correct and that is called faith.

Well that definition of faith certainly undermines any positive qualities you and others generally like to claim it has.... I'll bookmark this post, for the next time someone claims faith is a good thing :)

But if you notice, most of my comments on global warming now, are focused on the fallacious arguments and bad reasonings that fuel almost all the denialism around here. You'd have to look extremely hard for a single post that even presents a logically valid point against global warming, much less a factually correct, sound argument.

Instead, denialism is fueled by little more than arguments like this: "They grew grapes in Northern Europe in Medieval times, therefore AGW is false", "My menial knowledge of statistics is superior and more credible than the whole body of climate scientists that accept global warming and acknowledge the hockey-stick graph, therefore AGW is false", "It was colder than usual, yesterday, therefore AGW is false", "I don't like democrats or Al Gore, therefore AGW is false", etc etc.

The point in posting that report was more to watch the flurry of immediate rejections, and excuse making that would follow... and it has. One can't even begin to address the facts of the science, when there is such a huge gaping epistemilogical wall that even prevents those facts from being considered in the first place.

wilbur
07-31-2009, 04:35 PM
You never answered Constitutionally Speaking after he pointed out to you that Jefferson's downplaying of Christian beliefs can late in his life after he experienced much tragedy. You even changed him to the dome and as far as I am aware you never showed up.

As for your answering of contradictory point of views, you do this but often with no supporting evidence. You have done this to me serveral times. When asked for supporting evidence you recite your own subjective views. Can you point out a instance when you came to the conclusion that you were wrong about something? I'm not talking a little admission here or there to some fine point or another. I don't recall you ever stating that your opinion of anything has changed.


I'm sure I have but... I generally try very hard say things in terms that are less than certain when I know they arent, or when I don't feel confident that I should, like I did in the thread about the Muslim Principal.

lacarnut
07-31-2009, 05:23 PM
I'm sure I have but... I generally try very hard say things in terms that are less than certain when I know they arent, or when I don't feel confident that I should, like I did in the thread about the Muslim Principal.

I answered your question (post # 17). What say YOU.

FlaGator
07-31-2009, 05:49 PM
Well that definition of faith certainly undermines any positive qualities you and others generally like to claim it has.... I'll bookmark this post, for the next time someone claims faith is a good thing :)

But if you notice, most of my comments on global warming now, are focused on the fallacious arguments and bad reasonings that fuel almost all the denialism around here. You'd have to look extremely hard for a single post that even presents a logically valid point against global warming, much less a factually correct, sound argument.

Instead, denialism is fueled by little more than arguments like this: "They grew grapes in Northern Europe in Medieval times, therefore AGW is false", "My menial knowledge of statistics is superior and more credible than the whole body of climate scientists that accept global warming and acknowledge the hockey-stick graph, therefore AGW is false", "It was colder than usual, yesterday, therefore AGW is false", "I don't like democrats or Al Gore, therefore AGW is false", etc etc.

The point in posting that report was more to watch the flurry of immediate rejections, and excuse making that would follow... and it has. One can't even begin to address the facts of the science, when there is such a huge gaping epistemilogical wall that even prevents those facts from being considered in the first place.

You're welcome to book mark anything you like. I'm sure that most, if not all will, agree with me on my statement of faith. It undermines nothing and accept some misconceived notion you have concerning people of faith. My statement makes plain the obvious. There are clues all around us of the existence of God but they are clues and not proof. The proof that I have but you can't accept is the change He brought over me and the interaction He has with those who believe. Because you are outside looking in these events would not constitute proof to you either. But for those who believe it is all the proof we need.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
Corinthians 1:18

That doesn't change the fact that your belief in the lack of a deity is just that, a belief and beliefs that are held when their is no irrefutable evidence are based on faith. Lets face it, your version of atheism takes more faith than my belief in God. Unfortunately you can't see it and most everyone else can. Your whole world view is based on your faith in a non-existent God. To possibly believe otherwise brings your world view crashing down around you.

As for assertions about global warming, myself and others have quoted reputable sources including many climatologists who no longer accept global warming as a reality. You put forth evidence that can be shown to have a basis in those who have a personal or financial state in the reality of global warming but you disregard evidence against man-made global warming by citing the person or financial state that those opposing man made global warming. In that lies the whole problem with your argument. You can't accept the possibility that you evidence is not as objective as you think it is while at the same time using bias as the reason to doubt opposing evidence. The implication is that your side of the issue is more trustworthy than my side yet you can not prove this. What you don't wish to see is that if one side is guilty then both sides are probably guilty and you can't even trust your own source. The best that you can actually say is that you just don't know.

FlaGator
07-31-2009, 05:52 PM
I'm sure I have but... I generally try very hard say things in terms that are less than certain when I know they arent, or when I don't feel confident that I should, like I did in the thread about the Muslim Principal.

I have watched very closely and to my knowledge you have never admitted that you were wrong about anything but that is a point that probably matters little in the grand scheme of things.

wilbur
07-31-2009, 06:55 PM
That doesn't change the fact that your belief in the lack of a deity is just that, a belief and beliefs that are held when their is no irrefutable evidence are based on faith. Lets face it, your version of atheism takes more faith than my belief in God. Unfortunately you can't see it and most everyone else can. Your whole world view is based on your faith in a non-existent God. To possibly believe otherwise brings your world view crashing down around you.


How many times have I tried to explain my view to you, yet you still carry on with this delusional misrepresentation? My confidence in you as a thinker, or person even capable of basic reading comprehension has been severely undermined, as of late. I'll try to explain, one more time... if you can't get it after this, I won't waste any more words trying.

You repeatedly claim that I make a positive claim that there is no God. I don't. Nor is my worldview based on such a position. Part of the foundation of any worldview are epistemic principles that govern what we do and do not accept as true beliefs. Theories of gods simply have not met the standards that my worldview requires before a belief is accepted as true, or likely to be true. As since god theories have not met this burden of proof, I lack a belief in God. But I do acknowledge the possibility that some piece of evidence might turn up that could make some god theory meet that standard - though, I concede that I don't think it likely.

How this meets any definition of 'faith', I do not know. My suspicion is that you are so in love with the 'atheism is faith!' canard, that no amount of explanation will make you re-think it.

I fully accept that it is a basic fact of reality, that one has to make decisions on incomplete information, while hoping for the best... and if you want to call that faith, than fine, on those terms I have ''faith"... but that's not the gotcha that you want it to be, and you know it. And also realize this; in my worldview, that sort of thing is something to be minimized or eliminated, where-ever possible... not something to praise or encourage.

Anyways, its Friday night.. done for the night, the rest will have to wait.

Jfor
07-31-2009, 07:02 PM
You never responded to my question. What do you say about this? Is it false?


http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=16887&page=4

Jfor
07-31-2009, 07:12 PM
taps fingers on desk

PoliCon
07-31-2009, 07:49 PM
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/exxonmobil-report-smoke.html



Direct link to report pdf: http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf


Interesting stuff.... though I'm sure few here will actually do anything other than dismiss this report immediately.

Here's my challenge: Can any of you actually muster up enough integrity to actually consider this information with an open mind?

I will when you will. Nuff said.

FlaGator
07-31-2009, 09:52 PM
How many times have I tried to explain my view to you, yet you still carry on with this delusional misrepresentation? My confidence in you as a thinker, or person even capable of basic reading comprehension has been severely undermined, as of late. I'll try to explain, one more time... if you can't get it after this, I won't waste any more words trying.

You repeatedly claim that I make a positive claim that there is no God. I don't. Nor is my worldview based on such a position. Part of the foundation of any worldview are epistemic principles that govern what we do and do not accept as true beliefs. Theories of gods simply have not met the standards that my worldview requires before a belief is accepted as true, or likely to be true. As since god theories have not met this burden of proof, I lack a belief in God. But I do acknowledge the possibility that some piece of evidence might turn up that could make some god theory meet that standard - though, I concede that I don't think it likely.

How this meets any definition of 'faith', I do not know. My suspicion is that you are so in love with the 'atheism is faith!' canard, that no amount of explanation will make you re-think it.

I fully accept that it is a basic fact of reality, that one has to make decisions on incomplete information, while hoping for the best... and if you want to call that faith, than fine, on those terms I have ''faith"... but that's not the gotcha that you want it to be, and you know it. And also realize this; in my worldview, that sort of thing is something to be minimized or eliminated, where-ever possible... not something to praise or encourage.

Anyways, its Friday night.. done for the night, the rest will have to wait.

Your answer is irrational and you are the only one who doesn't get it. That fact that you more often than not involve yourself in discussions on a creator implies that He is something that you feel the need to address. If you were really sure that there was no God then you'd realize that the amount of effort you spend discussing him causes you to give His existence credibility.

Its not a matter of being in love with the atheism is faith view because it is what it is. It is a valid statement based on the rules of logic when confronted with someone who isn't engaging people of faith out of intellectual curiosity but is attempting share his or her contempt of them . Your presence in all these conversations belittling peoples' beliefs is in fact you defending your own view... defending your faith. Ask yourself why you join these conversations about a God you don't believe exists and then defend you beliefs by tossing out insulting remarks to those who do believe?

There are several atheists on this board and rarely if ever do they involve themselves in these conversations. Why? Because they don't believe in God and because of that lack of belief they see their atheism as a way of living. Listen close, the key word here is lack of belief. To them God isn't even a delusion that others suffer from. To them he is nothing, not even a concept. They don't even believe that he doesn't exist. For them I say that their atheism is not a belief or faith. It is an aspect of who they are. I never question them or their world view and they never question me on mine.How can I convince them of something that they don't conceive of and how can they persuade me to not believe in something that to them is literally nothing? Neither of us have words to make our conceptions fathomable to the other.

You, on the other hand, not only have to get involved you have to belittle those who feel differently than you do. Your atheism for you is not a way of life or an aspect of your existence. You treat it as a merit badge to be shown off and displayed whenever you feel that someone needs to put in their theological corner. I don't know if you will understand this and if you do I figure you won't agree with it, but here it goes. Your view is a paradox. Every defense of atheism you makes screams out that you believe that you don't believe. Just look at the first line of the message I quoted. You are trying to make me believe that you don't believe so much so you feel the need to insult me by questioning my cognitive abilities. In insulting me my inferring that I am delusional is an attack on me and a defense of you belief in atheism. An attack is merely an aggressive defense. What are you defending that is so important to you that it would cause you to attact me? Something you feel is scared to you, something like a belief. Hence, you operate on faith just as much as any believer doesl

Teetop
07-31-2009, 11:50 PM
Where is your proof? I certainly don't dismiss contrarian claims, I attempt to answer them.

Where is your's? The debate isn't setteled, yet.

Al Whore is still trying,to ride this "money train", for all it's friggin worth.

Answer one question? What causes "global warming/climate change"?

Answer; The Sun.

End. Of. Story.

PoliCon
08-01-2009, 12:30 AM
Oh here is a good question - what is the optimum temperature for the planet earth?

wilbur
08-01-2009, 02:08 AM
You never responded to my question. What do you say about this? Is it false?


http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=16887&page=4

No, its not false, that I know of... it just doesn't say what you think it says. Looked at in isolation, its nothing more than an anecdote... and one for which much work has been done to explain, even so.

What about the existence of the mines actually help you answer the following questions?

a) What were the actual temperature averages in the region during the time period they were in use?
b) If so, can you take this small data-point and use it to tell us what the worldwide climate was at the time (If you can, I think you will revolutionize paleoclimatology - might even be a Nobel in it for you).
c) And then, can you account for why the temperatures were where they were... and then show that those same factors explain the current global temperature trends?

Can you see the problems with the line of thinking here? Just like Policon's example about growing grapes in N. Europe during the MWP, these are anecdotes, not much different than citing some anomalous weather in some specific locale for a short period, then claiming it disproves AGW.

wilbur
08-01-2009, 02:22 AM
Oh here is a good question - what is the optimum temperature for the planet earth?

You - like others - claim to reject the theory of AGW in good faith, as if you have researched the theory, thought about, and found it lacking.

Such posts prove you are tremendously uninformed. This question misses the point, entirely. As I have oft repeated, we can surely live comfortably within a fairly elastic temperature range, especially with modern technology. But of utmost importance is the rate of change of temperature.... small increases in the rate of change can cause widespread problems... for us and the ecosystems that we (and our economies) depend on. Gradual temperature changes are more easily dealt with, as we (and ecosystems) have time to adapt.

This idea of rate of change is fundamental... and if its the first time you are really hearing it.. you can be sure you havent done your due diligence on this issue.

wilbur
08-01-2009, 03:02 AM
Your answer is irrational and you are the only one who doesn't get it. That fact that you more often than not involve yourself in discussions on a creator implies that He is something that you feel the need to address. If you were really sure that there was no God then you'd realize that the amount of effort you spend discussing him causes you to give His existence credibility.



Well, let me remind you that it was YOU (and Lars somewhat, I think) that brought religion to this thread... not I. I was content to leave this thread to AGW... but... everytime I raise a contentious issue, the horrible accusation starts to fly almost immediately; the accusation that I *gasp* "have faith".

At this point, I've answered the accusation dozens of times now - and I have answered to my satisfaction. If you don't accept it, well then too bad.

And your bringing out another old favorite of yours - The "You argue against X a lot, therefore you believe X!". I've had to have answered that one at least 4 or 5 times now... I believe I've said my peace on that as well. Too bad if you are unwilling to believe my answers.




There are several atheists on this board and rarely if ever do they involve themselves in these conversations. Why? Because they don't believe in God and because of that lack of belief they see their atheism as a way of living. Listen close, the key word here is lack of belief.

To them God isn't even a delusion that others suffer from. To them he is nothing, not even a concept. They don't even believe that he doesn't exist. For them I say that their atheism is not a belief or faith. It is an aspect of who they are. I never question them or their world view and they never question me on mine.How can I convince them of something that they don't conceive of and how can they persuade me to not believe in something that to them is literally nothing? Neither of us have words to make our conceptions fathomable to the other.


Well, I don't think I've addressed your comparisons of me to other atheists here, though its another regular fallacy in your arsenal. And it can be summed up in few words - my concerns are different than theirs. I place a higher priority on issues of knowledge and belief... issues of epistemology.. to which religion is very relevant. I place a higher priority on arguing against superstition. Many atheists are of the position that superstitions and religions are mostly harmless, or reasonable - but just not for them - so its no surprise they don't talk about it much. But that isn't me.

You also seem to be trying to piece together another nonsense argument: That if one lacks a belief in something, they cannot conceive of it, and therefore cannot argue against belief in that something. Obviously false on its face... no one would be able to argue at all if this were true.

I also argue in other places against many other forms of pseudo-science and alt medicine quackery, though its not a hot topic here. I am actually a former massage therapist - the culture is drenched in pseudo-science quackery, people who believe they have mystical powers etc, and I've seen people get hurt (not to mention ripped-off) due to quackery, and superstition.


You are trying to make me believe that you don't believe so much so you feel the need to insult me by questioning my cognitive abilities.

What you perceive as an insult, is what I am coming to believe is actually a fair assessment, given the number of times I have tried to explain some very basic things to you, and you simply seem unwilling to accept my answers, about MY beliefs... I don't ask you to accept my claims about the world outside my head.. but at least accept my accounts of my own beliefs. You try and paint me in to contradictions of your own invention, by trying to tell me what my beliefs ARE, when I clearly tell you that you are mistaken about them.

Japandroid
08-01-2009, 03:10 AM
I am not standing up for wilbur when I say this, but a lot of the AGW 'denialism' is a product of picking a side then finding sources to match it instead of doing research and then coming to a conclusion. Basically bred into a predisposition on every issue. Businesses like Exxon can easily take advantage of that knowing they can feed a strong sense of doubt by simply financing fluff pieces that lack real substance. As long as there is material, quality and quantity are irrelevant, out there that you can use to fortify your stance you'll use it and become increasingly entrenched and combative.

Jfor
08-01-2009, 09:55 AM
No, its not false, that I know of... it just doesn't say what you think it says. Looked at in isolation, its nothing more than an anecdote... and one for which much work has been done to explain, even so.

What about the existence of the mines actually help you answer the following questions?

a) What were the actual temperature averages in the region during the time period they were in use?
b) If so, can you take this small data-point and use it to tell us what the worldwide climate was at the time (If you can, I think you will revolutionize paleoclimatology - might even be a Nobel in it for you).
c) And then, can you account for why the temperatures were where they were... and then show that those same factors explain the current global temperature trends?

Can you see the problems with the line of thinking here? Just like Policon's example about growing grapes in N. Europe during the MWP, these are anecdotes, not much different than citing some anomalous weather in some specific locale for a short period, then claiming it disproves AGW.

You are missing the point totally. The climate is ALWAYS changing. It is not man that is causing the climate to change. 30 years ago your side was screaming "man is making the Earth get cooler. We are headed for an ice age!" They had the statistics, they had the "evidence". Now the Earth "warming" because of man. Your side seems to be looking at one thing and one thing only. Carbon. You are not taking into account that the sun has not been very active for the last few years and guess what? We are seeing cooler temperatures around. So yes, I reject any man made global warming "science".

Jfor
08-01-2009, 09:57 AM
To go back to your original post, you are trying to point out that us "deniers" are being fooled the big evil oil companies who have scientists who are only in it for the money. What about all these "believers" who are in it for the money? They get their money for governments to conduct their research.

PoliCon
08-01-2009, 10:57 AM
I am not standing up for wilbur when I say this, but a lot of the AGW 'denialism' is a product of picking a side then finding sources to match it instead of doing research and then coming to a conclusion. Basically bred into a predisposition on every issue.Two way street there my friend. I for one have looked at "evidence" have found nothing to convince me that man is to blame for wide scale climate change.



Businesses like Exxon can easily take advantage of that knowing they can feed a strong sense of doubt by simply financing fluff pieces that lack real substance. As long as there is material, quality and quantity are irrelevant, out there that you can use to fortify your stance you'll use it and become increasingly entrenched and combative.

As opposed to Al Gore who has no financial interest at all in promoting global warming - and his facts are completely above reproach - right? :rolleyes:

Constitutionally Speaking
08-01-2009, 12:07 PM
Here is a bit from activist cash on the Union of Concerned Scientists.


Here’s how it works: UCS conducts an opinion poll of scientists or organizes a petition that scientists sign. Then it manipulates or misconstrues the results in order to pronounce that science has spoken. In 1986 UCS asked 549 of the American Physical Society’s 37,000 members if Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was “a step in the wrong direction for America’s national security policy.” Despite the biased wording of the push-poll question, only 54 percent disapproved of SDI. Even so, UCS declared that the poll proved “profound and pervasive skepticism toward SDI in the scientific community.”


http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm?oid=145

Their donors are dominated by leftwing environmental groups including the Tides Foundation - a socialist money laundering group that hides who is donating money.


That being said, I do not like to dismiss something just because of the source.

Just as YOU should not dismiss something because of IT'S source.

Let's simply look at the facts.

Constitutionally Speaking
08-01-2009, 12:21 PM
You - like others - claim to reject the theory of AGW in good faith, as if you have researched the theory, thought about, and found it lacking.

Such posts prove you are tremendously uninformed. This question misses the point, entirely. As I have oft repeated, we can surely live comfortably within a fairly elastic temperature range, especially with modern technology. But of utmost importance is the rate of change of temperature.... small increases in the rate of change can cause widespread problems... for us and the ecosystems that we (and our economies) depend on. Gradual temperature changes are more easily dealt with, as we (and ecosystems) have time to adapt.

This idea of rate of change is fundamental... and if its the first time you are really hearing it.. you can be sure you havent done your due diligence on this issue.



My skepticism on AGW begins with something I DO know and intimately so - Statistics.

The methodology used to arrive at the VERY BASIS of the AGW argument is faulty. It is WORSE than faulty - it is fraudulent (unless Mr. Mann is a complete idiot- in which case fraud would be hard to prove but the lack of validity is not).

Here is a piece that explains it better than I can.

http://thedeadhand.com/Journal/tabid/160/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/68/Global-Warming-Deniers-Part-1-Statistics-needed.aspx

This, coupled with the Wegman report (which was commissioned by congress to address the validity of Mann's Hockey stick) shows jus how bad this methodology was.

http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf

Constitutionally Speaking
08-01-2009, 12:28 PM
Here are the findings from the Wegman report:


Findings
In general, we found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and
the criticisms of MM03/05a/05b to be valid and compelling. We also comment that they
were attempting to draw attention to the discrepancies in MBH98 and MBH99, and not to
do paleoclimatic temperature reconstruction. Normally, one would try to select a
calibration dataset that is representative of the entire dataset. The 1902-1995 data is not
fully appropriate for calibration and leads to a misuse in principal component analysis.
However, the reasons for setting 1902-1995 as the calibration point presented in the
narrative of MBH98 sounds reasonable, and the error may be easily overlooked by
someone not trained in statistical methodology. We note that there is no evidence that Dr.
Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimatology studies have had significant
interactions with mainstream statisticians.
In our further exploration of the social network of authorships in temperature
reconstruction, we found that at least 43 authors have direct ties to Dr. Mann by virtue of
coauthored papers with him. Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the
area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not
be as independent as they might appear on the surface. This committee does not believe
that web logs are an appropriate forum for the scientific debate on this issue.
It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely
heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical
community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results
was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much
reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent. Moreover, the work has
been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public
positions without losing credibility. Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s
assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and
that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.



You would think that in analyzing something so basic to your argument, you would WANT you statistics and statistical methodology at least reviewed by (if not done by) those who are qualified to for that endeavor.

Yet the AGW proponents are VERY resistant to this. Why????

Adam Wood
08-01-2009, 12:37 PM
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/exxonmobil-report-smoke.html



Direct link to report pdf: http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf


Interesting stuff.... though I'm sure few here will actually do anything other than dismiss this report immediately.

Here's my challenge: Can any of you actually muster up enough integrity to actually consider this information with an open mind?One cannot honestly avoid considering the source. UCS is indeed a very biased source.

You'd get more actual discussion if you dealt with actual honest sources.

Unfortunately, the Left has decided to paint everyone who doesn't buy into the global warming scam as environmental villains. If you don't believe in global warming, that automatically means that you go out and pour dioxin into the city reservoir every night, cackling like Renfield the whole time.

Whether you want to believe it or not, there are lots of people who are conservationists but are not environmentalists. I happen to be one of those. I believe very much in clean air, clean water, keeping the earth free of as much BS as we can, but I'm not so starry-eyed and ignorant to believe in "pristine earth" crap when there never, ever was a "pristine earth" to begin with, much less moonbattery like global warming.

Here's my standard question for the global warming alarmis cult: if global warming (as presented by the alarmists) is real, and not a political gambit, then why is it that every so-called "solution" for global warming (nee climate change) involves global socialism at its source?

FlaGator
08-01-2009, 02:04 PM
Well, let me remind you that it was YOU (and Lars somewhat, I think) that brought religion to this thread... not I. I was content to leave this thread to AGW... but... everytime I raise a contentious issue, the horrible accusation starts to fly almost immediately; the accusation that I *gasp* "have faith".

Here is what brought religion in to this for me.

Where is your proof? I certainly don't dismiss contrarian claims, I attempt to answer them.

It was rebuttal to the above statement. My reply was show examples of the falseness of this claim. Some were religious and some where on topic.
What Lars chooses to do is between you and him. The fact still remains that you dismiss claims that are contrary to yours despite good evidence. In this thread you are doing it and you don't even realize it. You can't even look at evidence against man made global warming and concede that you might be wrong or that the question is even open for debate in your mind. Instead you dismiss the source as having monetary motivations when the same can be concluded concerning your pro sources.