Hey, Where Did the Hockey Stick Go??

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
For you to deny that there is a bias on the side of those who have their science research funded is ignorant.

Am I accusing all those who have participated in this report? Of course, not. But, you seem incapable of realizing that there are many on the side of the alarmists who have ulterior motives. At least I recogonize that many on both sides are defending their own turf for selfish and non-altruistic reasons. For you to believe otherwise is incredibly naive.

NCAces

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, then, you must also believe then that Holocaust deniers have a point that Holocaust believers have ulterior motives? Now, you don't have to say that all Holocaust believers have ulterior motives, but you recognize both sides of the debate as being legitimate and equally plausible, yes?

And what of the age of the Earth? Young-Earth creationists have long claimed that secular scientists have set an agenda against them, to undermine their claims that the Earth is 6000 years old. Surely, you must believe that geologists, astronomers, physicists, biologists, chemists, et al truly do have ulterior motives to promote a secular agenda and cast doubt upon the veracity of the Genesis story -- and, as a tangential benefit, they get to fund all their hysterical, wacky research that the Earth is 5 billion, not 6000 years old. Remember, it's "very big business" and it must taint their work. Certainly you must not be so naive as to assume that those scientists who claim the Earth is 5 billion years old must not also have biases against YEC that must be acknowledged too, right?

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For you to deny that there is a bias on the side of those who have their science research funded is ignorant.

Am I accusing all those who have participated in this report? Of course, not. But, you seem incapable of realizing that there are many on the side of the alarmists who have ulterior motives. At least I recogonize that many on both sides are defending their own turf for selfish and non-altruistic reasons. For you to believe otherwise is incredibly naive.

NCAces

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, then, you must also believe then that Holocaust deniers have a point that Holocaust believers have ulterior motives? Now, you don't have to say that all Holocaust believers have ulterior motives, but you recognize both sides of the debate as being legitimate and equally plausible, yes?

And what of the age of the Earth? Young-Earth creationists have long claimed that secular scientists have set an agenda against them, to undermine their claims that the Earth is 6000 years old. Surely, you must believe that geologists, astronomers, physicists, biologists, chemists, et al truly do have ulterior motives to promote a secular agenda and cast doubt upon the veracity of the Genesis story -- and, as a tangential benefit, they get to fund all their hysterical, wacky research that the Earth is 5 billion, not 6000 years old. Certainly you must not be so naive as to assume that those scientists who claim the Earth is 5 billion years old must not also have biases that must be acknowledged too, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I simply choose to be a skeptic based on what I know of the current science. Are you implying or stating that we are all stupid and or in some way biased?

Your comparison to Holocaust deniers is not apt in that you are comparing an absolute known fact (the Holocaust) to scientific debate. I am surprised you can't see the difference. Actually, you seem somewhat intelligent, so I am sure you can see the difference but let your emotions get the best of you.

I also want to ask you three questions:

1. What if you are wrong?

2. Do you deny that some people "on your side" are being alarmists?

3. Is it your position that no one "on your side" has ulterior motives?

NCAces

[Smasharoo]

Your comparison to Holocaust deniers is not apt in that you are comparing an absolute known fact (the Holocaust) to scientific debate.

I imagine Holocaust deniers would call that a 'debate' also.


1. What if you are wrong?


Then reducing man made emissions of greenhouse gassers will only improve the overall air quality of the planet and the health of millions of people instead of preventing global warming.


2. Do you deny that some people "on your side" are being alarmists?


There are no 'sides' as there is no debate. Are some people being alarmists? Yes, of course. Are some people paying scientists to lie, of course.


3. Is it your position that no one "on your side" has ulterior motives?


Again, there are no 'sides'. There are the facts, the close to universal interpretation of those facts by responsible scientists, and then there are people and organizations who lie to attempt to their own benefit.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I simply choose to be a skeptic based on what I know of the current science.

[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly do you know of the current science?

[ QUOTE ]
Are you implying or stating that we are all stupid and or in some way biased?

[/ QUOTE ]

Does 'we all' mean 'we all skeptics'?

I would suggest that most of the well-known skeptics in the debate are bought and paid for by those interested in silencing legitimate research about global warming.

As for whether the non-scientific community who remain skeptical of global warming are biased, stupid, or ignorant -- I have no idea and I don't care. It's not particularly relevant.

[ QUOTE ]
Your comparison to Holocaust deniers is not apt in that you are comparing an absolute known fact (the Holocaust) to scientific debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then use my example about Young Earth creationists who claim that the the Earth is 6000 years old, and that secular scientists are biased against them.

[ QUOTE ]
I am surprised you can't see the difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm surprised you can't see the similarity between Holocaust deniers and global warming skeptics, but again, just use my other example.

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, you seem somewhat intelligent, so I am sure you can see the difference but let your emotions get the best of you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Strangely, accusing those who believe global warming is real and that action needs to be taken of being overly emotional/hysterical has been another documented talking point of industry interests and their propaganda machine, so you hit on that one, too. nh sir. The right-wing noise machine strikes again.


[ QUOTE ]
I also want to ask you three questions:

1. What if you are wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand this question; for one, I'm not a scientist and I don't claim to be. So it's not as if I'm trying to defend my research or something like that.

What I do like to do, however, is gamble. And I may not be a sharp, but I know that when 99% of experts believe one thing, and 1% of experts believe another -- and a significant portion of that 1% can have their objectively rightly called into question due to the fact they're bought and paid for by parties with a clear interest in silencing the other 99% -- I know where I'm placing my bets as to where the truth lies in that debate, and it's not even close.

[ QUOTE ]
2. Do you deny that some people "on your side" are being alarmists?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't deny that.

[ QUOTE ]
3. Is it your position that no one "on your side" has ulterior motives?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but all of the arguments about widespread biases on behalf of academics who are trying to scare up research dollars are contradicted by the fact that the peer-review system and the finite amount of research dollars available provides a clear motivation for the scientific community not engage in such behavior -- in fact, just the opposite. Any scientist who felt like they could have contradicted the existing consensus that global warming is real and likely man-made in a legitimately defensible way could EASILY have received millions of federal research dollars from a GOP controlled Congress/Bush Administration/industry lobbyists who are all highly sympathetic to such claims and eager to fund such research.

Are there some rouge scientists with interest in hyping the dangers of global warming to enact some kind of Marxist plan to destroy mere profit-seeking corporations they dislike? I certainly can't rule that out, since there are literally tens of thousands of scientists who believe global warming is real and that humans are at least partly at fault, and it's entirely possible there are those with 'ulterior motives'. Since the Borodog "they're vultures duping the public and the government out of research dollars" seems pretty inane, I'm not exactly sure what those motives might be. Given how many scientists believe global warming is an empirical reality, asking whether or not "is no one biased?" can essentially be reworded "do outliers exist?", which is pretty irrelevant anyway.

Look at the three questions you asked again, then look at your first post in this thread. Your argument has more or less transformed from "lolz of course all those global warming believers are biased" to "well, you have to concede at least one of those scientists might be biased". Quite an evolution.

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]

Your comparison to Holocaust deniers is not apt in that you are comparing an absolute known fact (the Holocaust) to scientific debate.

I imagine Holocaust deniers would call that a 'debate' also.


1. What if you are wrong?


Then reducing man made emissions of greenhouse gassers will only improve the overall air quality of the planet and the health of millions of people instead of preventing global warming.


2. Do you deny that some people "on your side" are being alarmists?


There are no 'sides' as there is no debate. Are some people being alarmists? Yes, of course. Are some people paying scientists to lie, of course.


3. Is it your position that no one "on your side" has ulterior motives?


Again, there are no 'sides'. There are the facts, the close to universal interpretation of those facts by responsible scientists, and then there are people and organizations who lie to attempt to their own benefit.

[/ QUOTE ]

You claim that there are no sides, when there obviously are. That means there is no more value discussing the issue with you. Your mind is closed to anything other than "100% mankind is the cause of global warming." Thanks kinda wraps it up for you and me.

NCAces

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
Look at the three questions you asked again, then look at your first post in this thread. Your argument has more or less transformed from "lolz of course all those global warming believers are biased" to "well, you have to concede at least one of those scientists might be biased". Quite an evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not as much as you would think ... my initial post was a sarcastic response to someone who was consistently pointing out that the skeptics are biased and whores, while not acknowledging the opposite could or is true.

My position is actually fairly straight-forward and shared by many.

1. I believe that we are experiencing global warming.

2. I am not sure we know enough to conclude that humankind is the primary or substantial cause of this warming. There is evidence that solar and natural conditions may be as big if not a bigger contributor.

3. I am concerned that scientists who are being cautious and skeptical in their approach are being treated as they are ... skepticism is typically welcomed in scientific debate, but not here.

4. I am concerned that if it is determined that something needs to be done, that it is a balanced approach. That is, if the science is that humans need to curb activities that are causing global warming, then it becomes a political issue. In that case the alarmist and anti-capitalists will scare the hell out of me.

Having made that list, maybe I see better why I am a skeptic. It isn't that I don't want to admit that the science is leaning toward mankind global warming. Maybe I am fearful of the debacle that will occur once and if that is concluded. If I can assume man made global warning for the sake of discussion, can you imagine the geopolitical shitstorm that will be a result? Maybe I just want to be really sure about the science before having to face the ramifications.

By the way, isn't it kinda funny that you would ridicule me for the fact that my opinions might have evolved. Isn't that the purpose of debate. Or do you just like to argue for the sake of argument, incapable of digesting what is being said, and then maybe moving one way or the other? Me thinks you have been too involved in "discussions" where two polar opposites just piss all over each other with neither side influencing the other.

NCAces

[wacki]

Utah, the world around the campfire is this is just to emphasize that the paleoclimate reconstructions are not the central pillar of the climate change debate. Commenting on the report before the full thing is released is silly. If the paleoclimate reconstructions are included in the full report will you admit you are wrong?

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, given that corporations who might be held liable for global warming, politicians that cater to those corporations, and media pundits, media outlets, and think-tanks who either share the ideology of said politicians or are on the payroll of said corporations all mysteriously sound alike -- that is, they have strikingly similar talking points, buzzwords, and catch-phrases to voice their criticism of the vast majority of work done by scientists on global warming -- is it possible (gasp) -- is it possible there's some strategic coordination going on?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, no way the bias runs the other way. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] It's all about the big bad corporations. Funding for research doesn't affect anything. I am constantly amazed at those who are so quick to point out the alleged bias of the skeptics, yet turn a blind eye to the alleged bias of the alarmists.

NCAces

[/ QUOTE ]

Scientists offered 10K to discredit IPCC

I thought this was interesting.

[Paul B.]

OT: Utah, please clear your PM box.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
Utah, the world around the campfire is this is just to emphasize that the paleoclimate reconstructions are not the central pillar of the climate change debate.

[/ QUOTE ]
I do not understand the statement.

[ QUOTE ]
Commenting on the report before the full thing is released is silly.

[/ QUOTE ]Releasing a summary of a report months before releasing the underlying data/analysis is fraudulent.

[ QUOTE ]
If the paleoclimate reconstructions are included in the full report will you admit you are wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong about what?