Has the US gone communist yet? It's hard to tell.

[Riddick]

You're contention was

[ QUOTE ]
"R&D will cost a few billion. The only people that are capable of dedicating that much money are those that are in the $3 trillion dollar energy industry and governments."

[/ QUOTE ]

You then contend that no private firm in history has made an investment that compares to $8 billion over 20 years.

I have provided a dozen examples of firms outside the $3 trillion energy industry and governments that routinely invest billions upon billions of dollars in their respective fields, one of which was greater than $8 billion but over 10 years.

You're criteria of $8 billion+20 years, as I said:

[ QUOTE ]
merely reflects an absence of any risk, any competitive pressure, any liability, or any real consequences of failure.


[/ QUOTE ]

and does not in any way demonstrate inferiority of private investment. In fact it very clearly demonstrates the inferiority of government spending (it cannot possibly be called "government investment" because it is impossible for a government to invest, only to consume)

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
You're contention was

[ QUOTE ]
"R&D will cost a few billion. The only people that are capable of dedicating that much money are those that are in the $3 trillion dollar energy industry and governments."

[/ QUOTE ]

You then contend that no private firm in history has made an investment that compares to $8 billion over 20 years.

I have provided a dozen examples of firms outside the $3 trillion energy industry and governments that routinely invest billions upon billions of dollars in their respective fields, one of which was greater than $8 billion but over 10 years.

You're criteria of $8 billion+20 years, as I said:

[ QUOTE ]
merely reflects an absence of any risk, any competitive pressure, any liability, or any real consequences of failure.


[/ QUOTE ]

and does not in any way demonstrate inferiority of private investment. In fact it very clearly demonstrates the inferiority of government spending (it cannot possibly be called "government investment" because it is impossible for a government to invest, only to consume)

[/ QUOTE ]

If you separate the "government" from the society it represents, you are correct. I dont believe you can do that.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
You then contend that no private firm in history has made an investment that compares to $8 billion over 20 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said this. And you know it.

The conditions I applied were:
-"Remember they are getting ZERO ROI for at least 20 years."
-"They are also doing something highly theoretical."
-"long development [15+ years]"
-"multibillion cost"
-"Show me a project similar to ITER that has been accomplished in history using private funds." (implying single project, single goal, not hundreds of products)


all of which are exact quotes from this post
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...age=0&vc=1

Honestly, do you think you really think any of your examples satisfy those all those conditions?

[John Feeney]

I asked the question in at least four separate responses to you. This was the first time you saw it??? Or was this simply the time (due to wacki's links) when you felt you'd better have an answer?

[ QUOTE ]
I didnt say I work FOR climatologists, I said I have consulted to organizations which include climatologists, and have had the opportunity to discuss the issues with them.

[/ QUOTE ]

No you didn't. You said:

[ QUOTE ]
...as part of my job [ I ] work with several climatologists.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...Number=6033695


[/ QUOTE ]

Two very different statements. Interesting how the story has changed.

So do any of these guys you've talked to have any direct involvement at all in climate change research? Could you please point us to which of them has published peer reviewed articles on climate change? (I think you were only able to come up with one guy before, without direct ties to big oil, who had actually published something related in some way to climate change.)

You still seem unable or unwilling to name them. Who are they? After all, we've provided you with many scientists doing peer reviewed research who will tell you the consensus is overwhelming on the anthropogenic factor in climate change. Perhaps if you tell us who these scientists are that you've talked with, we'll have a better idea how you came to believe there is no consensus on anthropogenic global warming.

And, out of curiosity, are you claiming expertise in all those other areas wacki listed?

[John Feeney]

[ QUOTE ]
You cannot logically dismiss an argument/position based on the prior history of the source.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're misapplying the idea. It holds when it comes to the question of whether or not a statement (He's paid by Exxon to dismiss anthropogenic global warming, therefore his argument is wrong.) is, in itself, logically sound. It does not hold when it comes to the question of whether, given a source's background, history, known allegiances, etc., you can reasonably safely dismiss that source's argument. That is, given such information, you can sometimes know there is only the tiniest chance a source's argument will be valid. To use a blatant example, if someone tells me his two-year-old of average intelligence came up with an argument to show that global warming is in no way human-caused, I can safely dismiss it.

The Exxon-funded climate change dismissers are much like that two-year-old. And just as it's pretty safe to dismiss the tobacco-hired scientist's (or a two-year-old's) argument that smoking is safe, it's pretty safe to dismiss the arguments of scientists hired by Exxon to dismiss anthropogenic global warming, particularly as long as they're not doing peer reviewed research of their own (a part of their background).

[John Feeney]

I asked Copernicus:

[ QUOTE ]
I asked the question in at least four separate responses to you. This was the first time you saw it???

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's true, I wonder if this doesn't shed some light on some of your past posts. A number of times your arguments have been soundly and, IMO, decisivley refuted. Yet you've continued on as if you hadn't even read the post refuting you. (At a minimum, you've seemed to ignore important points. e.g., my questioning your assertion that some countries had military budgets not too much smaller than that of the U.S.) Now I'm wondering if maybe you hadn't read those posts. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
I asked the question in at least four separate responses to you. This was the first time you saw it??? Or was this simply the time (due to wacki's links) when you felt you'd better have an answer?

[ QUOTE ]
I didnt say I work FOR climatologists, I said I have consulted to organizations which include climatologists, and have had the opportunity to discuss the issues with them.

[/ QUOTE ]

No you didn't. You said:

[ QUOTE ]
...as part of my job [ I ] work with several climatologists.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...Number=6033695


[/ QUOTE ]

Two very different statements. Interesting how the story has changed.

So do any of these guys you've talked to have any direct involvement at all in climate change research? Could you please point us to which of them has published peer reviewed articles on climate change? (I think you were only able to come up with one guy before, without direct ties to big oil, who had actually published something related in some way to climate change.)

You still seem unable or unwilling to name them. Who are they? After all, we've provided you with many scientists doing peer reviewed research who will tell you the consensus is overwhelming on the anthropogenic factor in climate change. Perhaps if you tell us who these scientists are that you've talked with, we'll have a better idea how you came to believe there is no consensus on anthropogenic global warming.

And, out of curiosity, are you claiming expertise in all those other areas wacki listed?

[/ QUOTE ]

What dont you understand about the difference between working WITH someone and working FOR someone? There is no change in story, just your desperate attempt to discredit something you have no clue about.

There are confidentiality agreements that prevent me from naming them or their companies. Yes they have direct involvement in climate change research.

Expertise in what areas? My expertise is primarily in financial forecasting, economics, statistics, defense contracting and auditing, corporate tax law and labor relations.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You cannot logically dismiss an argument/position based on the prior history of the source.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're misapplying the idea. It holds when it comes to the question of whether or not a statement (He's paid by Exxon to dismiss anthropogenic global warming, therefore his argument is wrong.) is, in itself, logically sound. It does not hold when it comes to the question of whether, given a source's background, history, known allegiances, etc., you can reasonably safely dismiss that source's argument. That is, given such information, you can sometimes know there is only the tiniest chance a source's argument will be valid. To use a blatant example, if someone tells me his two-year-old of average intelligence came up with an argument to show that global warming is in no way human-caused, I can safely dismiss it.

The Exxon-funded climate change dismissers are much like that two-year-old. And just as it's pretty safe to dismiss the tobacco-hired scientist's (or a two-year-old's) argument that smoking is safe, it's pretty safe to dismiss the arguments of scientists hired by Exxon to dismiss anthropogenic global warming, particularly as long as they're not doing peer reviewed research of their own (a part of their background).

[/ QUOTE ]

Im not misapplying anything. You are confusing appeal to authority and circumstantial ad hominen.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
I asked Copernicus:

[ QUOTE ]
I asked the question in at least four separate responses to you. This was the first time you saw it???

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's true, I wonder if this doesn't shed some light on some of your past posts. A number of times your arguments have been soundly and, IMO, decisivley refuted. Yet you've continued on as if you hadn't even read the post refuting you. (At a minimum, you've seemed to ignore important points. e.g., my questioning your assertion that some countries had military budgets not too much smaller than that of the U.S.) Now I'm wondering if maybe you hadn't read those posts. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Im sure I miss a lot of posts. When a thread winds up on the second or third page, I dont see it, leave the forum and return, then even though it might reappear on the first page the responses before I left the forum are skipped as "read".

My life doesnt center around these boards. In fact a lot of the "board closure" thread and the new post by myrtle on board decorum make me wonder how pathetic the lives of some posters must be. Its a freaking internet bulletin board. On a scale of importance it ranks somewhere well below weeding the walkway.

[John Feeney]

[ QUOTE ]
Im not misapplying anything. You are confusing appeal to authority and circumstantial ad hominen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Copernicus, you are. To take one more shot at it, it is a fallacy to say "Because he's paid by an oil company to deny anthropogenic global warming (and does not do his own peer reviewed research on the topic), his argument against it, has to be wrong." It is not a fallacy to say, "Because he's paid by an oil company to deny anthropogenic global warming (and does not do his own peer reviewed research on the topic), his argument against it is extremely likely to be wrong. So, for all practical purposes, it can be safely dismissed."