Ex-sceptic says climate change is down to humans
POSTED BY: kpo
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 14, 2025 17:12
VIEWED: 3935
PAGE 3 of 4
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Man, you and your ilk are truly feeble, Hero! Aything, ANYTHING as an excuse not to face the issue. Wretched effort.
He leads the Berkeley Earth Project...do you think that job and the associated grant money would go to someone who is or was a real skeptic?
Global warming science is about picking a conclusion, then explaining away the contrary evidence. If you can do that you get money to study the environment.
H
Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012
Ah - so now that he's been convinced by the evidence, he must have been a traitor all along, eh?
He was actually working on money supplied by one of the Koch brothers.
According to this scientist, he was trying to find an explanation for a warming cycle that didn't include man, and he was unable to do so.
Science is about following the evidence to the conclusion it leads to.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"The groin cup and throat protector have about as much ballistic protection as the kneepads I wear when I'm doing a job that requires me to be on my knees." - Troll
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Current skeptic still a skeptic.
What do you know that Prof. Muller doesn't? (and virtually every other climate scientist)
I know what hundreds if not thousands of actual scientists know, that there is no credible evidence to the myth that is man made global warming.
No, you don't.
You also don't have "hundreds" or "thousands" of "actual scientists" that agree with your claims.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"The groin cup and throat protector have about as much ballistic protection as the kneepads I wear when I'm doing a job that requires me to be on my knees." - Troll
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As always with right wing zealots - belief trumps fact, every time.
Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.
"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Boy, and those science research grants are just such a HUGE amount of money! Totally worth lying for, and totally enough to convince anonymous peer reviewers to lie as well, and give up their chance to make bigger headlines by refuting this research. (Though, you might note that the research posted here has not gone through peer review yet.)
Yep, those science researchers are living high off the hog, with their 18 mansions and leer jets and sports cars and ridiculous incomes that are so big that they have to hide their tax returns when they run for office...
Oh, wait. Those aren't scientists living like that. Tell me, who is really pulling in the money, billions and billions that only pour in as long as they can push certain ideas about global warming so that their lucrative industries won't have to change their ways, hmmm?
It just kills me when people try to blame money, but live in denial of which side of this argument the money is really on. Open your EYES fool!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Conservative Think Tank Not Thinking
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/02/conservative_th/
Quote:
Last Friday, the Guardian reported that AEI had offered a $10,000 open-letter bribe to the scientific and economic communities to cook up some evidence, any evidence, that would debunk global warming and undermine the report issued last week by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC report, considered the most comprehensive analysis of climate change to date, said there is a 90 percent probability that human activity has caused global warming.
IPCC dropped the report as multiple congressional committees have been holding hearings about the Bush administration tampering with or suppressing climate change research by government scientists. In a survey carried out by the Union of Concerned Scientists and presented before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee last Tuesday, scores of scientists claimed to have been muzzled by government honchos.
That doesn’t look good for the administration, especially on the heels of a State of the Union address in which the president tried to position himself as more environmentally friendly than ever. Remember, one of the first things Bush did in office was scuttle the Kyoto treaty, a move AEI lobbied heavily for. The neo-con think tank, which has received more than $1.5 million from ExxonMobil over the last decade, has long advocated for environmentally unsound policy. The AEI website is littered with articles penned by in-house scholars that carry restrained titles such as "The Kyoto Treaty Deserved to Die," and "The Global Warming Joke."
So AEI’s $10,000 bribe should come as no surprise. Nor should the notion that the think tank could be carrying water for an administration known to outsource nasty jobs. ExxonMobil is not only AEI’s sugardaddy but also one of Bush’s major backers and the same company that a separate UCS report last month claimed had adopted Big Tobacco’s disinformation tactics and "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."
Also
Natural Gas Fracking Industry May Be Paying Off Scientists
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/07/gas-fracking-science-conflic
t/
Quote:
Last week the University of Texas provost announced he would re-examine a report by a UT professor that said fracking was safe for groundwater after the revelation that the professor pocketed hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Texas natural gas developer. It’s the latest fusillade in the ongoing battle over the basic facts of fracking in America.
climate_desk_bugTexans aren’t the only ones having their fracking conversations shaped by industry-funded research. Ohioans got their first taste last week of the latest public-relations campaign by the energy policy wing of the US Chamber of Commerce. It’s called “Shale Works for US,” and it aims to spend millions on advertising and public events to sell Ohioans on the idea that fracking is a surefire way to yank the state out of recession.
The campaign is loaded with rosy employment statistics, which trace to an April report authored by professors at three major Ohio universities and funded by, you guessed it, the natural gas industry. The report paints a bright future for fracking in Ohio as a job-creator.
One co-author of the study, Robert Chase, is poised at such a high-traffic crossroads of that state’s natural gas universe that his case was recently taken up by the Ohio Ethics Commission, whose chairman called him “more than a passing participant in the operations of the Ohio oil and gas industry,” and questioned his potential conflicts of interest. As landowners in a suite of natural gas-rich states like Texas and Ohio struggle to to decipher conflicting reports about the safety of fracking, Chase is a piece in what environmental and academic watchdogs call a growing puzzle of industry-funded fracking research with poor disclosureNOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Why for chrissake is anyone even bothering to respond to rappy?
I've almost broken the addiction... you can too. Just ask me how!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Why for chrissake is anyone even bothering to respond to rappy?
I've almost broken the addiction... you can too. Just ask me how!
Actually, I was replaying to Hero, (OK, not much better than Rap) but also to other folks out there who post this kind of argument - both here and on other sites. They are so in love with this idea that GW science is all about windfalls in funding for "dishonest" GW researchers yet won't ever hold a conversation about who's really making money off of this issue. Do they actually know any scientists and their lifestyles? The scientists I know who are in any way wealthy did it through writing textbooks, scoring good engineering patents, or cleverly investing - and the investments had nothing to do with their research. More importantly, their wealth is NOTHING compared to that of the average corporate oil company schmuk who not only makes a killing of putting carbon in the atmosphere, he/she funds the anti-GW movement (through GOP Superpacs) that started this whole attack-the-scientist plan. Go figure.
Like that sequestration issue some poster once got into here. I forget who, but I remember the extremely lame argument: that GW has been invented by academics who stand to make bazillions off of sequestration research. WTF? Sequestration couldn't make a penny to each thousand dollars pulled in by the minimally regulated production and sales of hydrocarbons. What the hell world do you live in that you see sequestration dollars as an issue, but not oil industry income? Wack!
(Charles Gun would tell me: "now, you KNOW you can't say wack." Oh well. I did anyway.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm betting Rappy keeps that secret list of "hundreds if not thousands" of scientists in the same hiding place as Michele Bachmann and her list of "hundreds of Nobel Prize-winning scientists" who believe in intelligent design. Neither of them has ever been able to produce any such list.
I wonder why...
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"The groin cup and throat protector have about as much ballistic protection as the kneepads I wear when I'm doing a job that requires me to be on my knees." - Troll
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As to those "thousands of scientists", here's the kind of stuff it probably comes from:Quote:
31,000 scientists reject global warming and say "no convincing evidence" that humans can or will cause global warming? But polls show that of scientists working in the field of climate science, and publishing papers on the topic: 97% of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century; and 97% think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.
While polls of scientists actively working in the filed of climate science indicate strong general agreement that the earth is warming and human activity is a significant factor, the internet is buzzing with blog posts that say 31,000 scientists say there is "no convincing evidence" that humans can or will cause "catastrophic" heating of the atmosphere.
This claim originates from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which has an online petition (petitionproject.org) that states:Quote:
The petition form itself lends a clue as to the nature of the petition. Judging by the form below, one notes that one only needs to mark a check box to show that one has a Ph.D., M.S., or B.S. degree, and then fill in the fields.
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
Since the results are not verifiable, there is no way to know how many signers have actually earned their degree. Therefore, the integrity of the petition is at the very least, questionable.
Do '31,000 scientists say global warming is not real'? Maybe. but how important a number is that? They are not talking about only climate scientists. You could have a PhD in anthropology or religion, but what expertise does one have in climatology? That is the more important question.
WHAT DO SCIENTISTS REALLY THINK?
What is notable is that the polls indicate there is a perspective difference between working climate scientists and scientists not working in the field climate. When one examines the experts in the field, one sees a significant divergence from the general view. So the more important question for us is, what do 'expert' climate scientists think?
2009 - Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
90% of participants answered “risen” to question 1.
82% answered 'yes' to question 2.
Of those with expertise in climate science:
96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1.
97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.
Source: EOS, TRANSACTIONS AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION, VOL. 90, NO. 3, P. 22, 2009
2009 Pew Research Center Poll
84% of scientists say the earth is warming because of human activity.
Asked if they regarded global warming as a very serious problem?
Scientists - 70%
Public - 47%
Source: Pew Research Center
2008 Poll
Scientists agree that humans ca
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm guessing their "31,000" scientists is a lot like the "83% of doctors" who are allegedly considering quitting medicine rather than complying with ObamaCare.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"The groin cup and throat protector have about as much ballistic protection as the kneepads I wear when I'm doing a job that requires me to be on my knees." - Troll
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME