Global Warming - Page 7

John Feeney · #61 03-08-2006, 05:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
When you specifically pick "climate-change naysayers" you're pretty much restricting yourself to hacks, since I think the evidence is incontrovertible and insurmountable (as I said). That's like picking "evolution naysayers".

My point is that corporate funded research per se is not inherently less trustworthy that publicly-funded research, and the scientific literature is filled with privately funded research that is peer reviewed and published in the same journals as publicly funded research.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then on the point I was making we agree. The naysayers are indeed hacks. And, whether because of that or because they simply have no case, I don't think they've really published much of value. And when you compare those hacks with the scientific community it's pretty easy to see whose statements one can safely give more weight to. I was just trying to point the OP toward the more credible information.

I don't feel qualified to comment on your statement that "corporate funded research per se is not inherently less trustworthy that publicly-funded research." In theory it should be true. I'm not sure about the reality.

pvn · #62 03-08-2006, 05:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Once again, you are wrong on many points. Number one, even if it did cost trillions that doesn't cripple the economy it strengthens it. Where do you think the money goes? Into a black hole? It goes into the economy in terms of expenditures on new equipment and technologies. It creates jobs. It is a trillion dollar shot in the arm.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why don't we start a government production program to build tons of new equipment and dump it in the ocean? Think of the jobs we can create!

See "broken window fallacy."

John Feeney · #63 03-08-2006, 05:40 PM

My point is you noticed an apparent typo in one of countless reproductions of a famous graph. (I don't believe the image posted is from Mann's work.) What does that tell us about the work the image refers to, or about the science of climate change or anything else other than that whoever reproduced the graph for some website made a typo?

bocablkr · #64 03-08-2006, 05:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Once again, you are wrong on many points. Number one, even if it did cost trillions that doesn't cripple the economy it strengthens it. Where do you think the money goes? Into a black hole? It goes into the economy in terms of expenditures on new equipment and technologies. It creates jobs. It is a trillion dollar shot in the arm.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why don't we start a government production program to build tons of new equipment and dump it in the ocean? Think of the jobs we can create!

See "broken window fallacy."

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you disputing the examples I gave or not?

wacki · #65 03-08-2006, 06:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
My point is you noticed an apparent typo in one of countless reproductions of a famous graph. (I don't believe the image posted is from Mann's work.) What does that tell us about the work the image refers to, or about the science of climate change or anything else other than that whoever reproduced the graph for some website made a typo?

[/ QUOTE ]

ugh... only for you.

Feeney, your forgot a third option: They suck at marketing.

I have no idea why they would compress the top half of the graph. Here is another from a different source with the similar results and an uncompressed top half.

John Feeney · #66 03-08-2006, 06:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
They suck at marketing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh, well yes, I was thinking the same thing - that the graph would more dramatically illustrate anthropogenic climate change if it were to continue with the top portion matching the bottom (and so stretching out the rise in the graph). That's another reason it didn't seem like much of a "catch."

wet work · #67 03-08-2006, 06:40 PM

i like the dennis miller joke on this...
"pardon me for not trusting the temp. readings from the 1800s..."

theweatherman · #68 03-08-2006, 06:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
i like the dennis miller joke on this...
"pardon me for not trusting the temp. readings from the 1800s..."

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont get it.

hmkpoker · #69 03-08-2006, 06:45 PM

Another question about global warming:

What exactly are the negative repurcussions? Are the sea levels going to rise? Have they risen substantially already?

What's all that stuff about a new ice age?

FlFishOn · #70 03-08-2006, 06:48 PM

"What does that tell us about the work the image refers to, or about the science of climate change or anything else other than that whoever reproduced the graph for some website made a typo? "

It tells me the folks advocating here are not scientists. Lobbyists? Maybe. Green warriors? Maybe. Scientists? Not a chance.