Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 46 of 46
  1. #41  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,322
    Quote Originally Posted by Japandroid View Post
    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?
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #42  
    Senior Member Constitutionally Speaking's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,301
    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/organiza...ew.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.
    I long for the days when our President actually liked our country.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #43  
    Senior Member Constitutionally Speaking's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,301
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    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...cs-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/othe...man_Report.pdf
    I long for the days when our President actually liked our country.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #44  
    Senior Member Constitutionally Speaking's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,301
    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????
    Last edited by Constitutionally Speaking; 08-01-2009 at 01:36 PM.
    I long for the days when our President actually liked our country.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #45  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    3,578
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...ort-smoke.html



    Direct link to report pdf: http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documen...xon_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?
    Olde-style, states' rights conservative. Ask if this concept confuses you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #46  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    27,958
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    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.
    Last edited by FlaGator; 08-01-2009 at 03:21 PM.
    Cast your burden on the Lord,
    and he will sustain you;
    he will never permit
    the righteous to be moved.
    Psalm 55:22
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •