global warming denial

[Zero]

Then it would be reasonable to question ther data. Not dismiss it out of hand. Can you establish this fact?

What conflict of interest? Tobacco companies hired scientist to see if there products were safe. The scientists concluded that the products (cigarettes) were not safe.

Did the scientists working for the tobacco companies have a conflict of interest?

Should there data be dismissed out of hand?

Absolutely, I would want to see the data on both sides before I rejected it.

That is skepticism. Dismissing the data out of hand is not.

Show me a well-respected, non-political, and non-woowoo source against global warming. And then show me another similar source backing up the first.

BTW, the government has hired scientists, and they all(AFAIK) back up the general global warming claims. Why isn't the government going with their own scientists?

 

[shanek]

What if they, and groups like them, comprise the vast majority of the anti-global warming groups? Doesn't the conflict of interest point a reasonable person to doubt their claims, if not dismiss them out of hand?

Well, what if the vast majority of the GW advocacy groups have ties to either government agencies, or anti-corporate or Socialist groups? Doesn't the conflict of interest point a reasonable person to doubt their claims, if not dismiss them out of hand?

Y'know, this kind of thing is fun if you're playing tennis, but as a conversation among skeptics it leaves a lot to be desired...

Imagine of the majority of scientists claimed that condoms didn't work, and 90% of the dissenting scientists were employed by condom manufacturers. Wouldn't you be skeptical in that situation?

I'd be skeptical only because I'm aware of a fantastic amount of evidence that shows that condoms DO work. Whoever employed them is irrelevant. It's where the EVIDENCE takes you.

 

[shanek]

It's useless, zero. RandFan is one of the best and even he can't resist the urge to simply stonewall and never acknowledge a single point on the opposite side.

Don't you think you'd better stop and consider WHY someone you consider to be "one of the best" would be "stonewalling" in the first place? Maybe because your side HASN'T made any points that rise above ad hominem attacks and arguments from authority?

We're here to discuss the EVIDENCE. If you can't make your case by using the evidence, then it isn't worth consideration on a skeptics' board.

 

[RandFan]

Show me a well-respected, non-political, and non-woowoo source against global warming. And then show me another similar source backing up the first.

Whoa, hold up there. Let's not put the cart before the horse. I made no such claims. You are the one to make the claim, ergo you are the one that will have to back it up. Why do people continue to make claims and expect their opposition to prove the claim wrong?

BTW, the government has hired scientists, and they all(AFAIK) back up the general global warming claims. Why isn't the government going with their own scientists?

First off, as to this paragraph, what claim are you talking about?

1. The earth is getting warmer.
   
2. Humans are a significant cause of global warming.
   
3. Global warming will have serious negative consequences that will far ought weigh any positive aspects for humans and society.
   [/list=1] Off the top of my head I would say;
   • I doubt that there is such a consensus.
     
   • If there is that does not mean that government scientists are somehow special and are not infallible.
     
   • There is significant data and respected scientists who do not accept these theories.
     [/list=a]

 

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Zero
Show me a well-respected, non-political, and non-woowoo source against global warming. And then show me another similar source backing up the first.

I like how you give yourself a convenient out. Assuming that I do give you a source, why not consider the argument instead of prejudging and making an ad hominem argument?

I did make the claim that there are credible sources who dispute global warming.

I have to go to my child's recietal but I will get some sources.

To start with, how about Steven Milloy? He is the publisher of JunkScience.com, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and the author of Junk Science Judo: Self-Defense Against Health Scares and Scams (Cato Institute, 2001).

Steven Milloy Junk Science

[/b]Houghton’s assertion that the 1990s was the warmest decade in the last 1,000 years (search) draws out the question, “Why was it so warm 1,000 years ago?”

Since there were no power plants, factories or automobiles back then, that warm period was obviously natural climate change (search). So why should we leap to the conclusion that any 1990s warming is definitely manmade?

Of course, it’s not even clear that any measurable “global warming” has really occurred, much less that it’s human-induced.

Satellite and weather balloon measurements of atmospheric temperatures since the 1970s actually indicate slight cooling to no change. To the extent any significant warming may have occurred during the 20th century, most occurred before 1940, while most greenhouse gas emissions (search) occurred after 1940 -- so there’s no apparent cause-and-effect relationship.

While it’s possible that some human-induced warming may be occurring, Virginia state climatologist Pat Michaels (search) once pointed out in a television debate with Clinton administration eco-czarina Carol Browner: “The fact of the matter is if you look at those temperature records that you keep on citing, you will see that almost all of the warming takes place in the absolute coldest, most miserable air masses in Siberia and northwestern North America … Great. We've warmed Siberia from minus 40 to minus 38. Big deal.”

If the 1990s were unusually warm, we don’t know why. Neither do the global-warming pushers. [/b]

Instead of attacking Mr. Milloy's credibility with ad hominem, why don't you attack his plainly worded argument?

 

[shanek]

To start with, how about Steven Milloy? He is the publisher of JunkScience.com, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute

Oh, but you realize that makes him a right-wing wacko and a shill for the Big Evil Oil Companies, and therefore we don't have to examine his data and answer the questions broached by same, right?

 

[varwoche]

What does this mean and how is it evidence of a link between oil and terrorism?

Come on, get serious. Surely you are not debating the convienent relationship that has existed for decades between USA and Saudi, the wellspring of virulent Islamic fundamentalism.

varwoche

 

[Theodore Kurita]

Oh, but you realize that makes him a right-wing wacko and a shill for the Big Evil Oil Companies, and therefore we don't have to examine his data and answer the questions broached by same, right?

No, I am not saying that.

I am saying that the data he presents needs to be looked at more carefully.

Government studies are studies that are designed to be unbiased.

However, if the study is completely privatized, and you have special interests groups running all around you trying to get you to fudge data, and completely obscure facts, would you do it?

Would you do it if these special interests groups said that tehy would fund your entire project?

That is what has happened to most of the studies coming from conservative organizations at the moment.


And as for Steven Miller himself, he says that DDT does not have any harmful effects.

Bull f****** shi**!


Look, it is right on his frontpage.

And it goes by the tite:

The Malaria Clock:

The Green Eco-Imperialist Legacy of Death


Come on, any rational person would look at that, look at the actual data on DDT and say BULL SH**!

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Government studies are studies that are designed to be unbiased.

Put.down.the.crack.pipe.

Wait -- did you used to be "chessmanskeptic"? Because if so, I feel silly for even replying.

N/A

 

[Theodore Kurita]

Put.down.the.crack.pipe.

Wait -- did you used to be "chessmanskeptic"? Because if so, I feel silly for even replying.

N/A

Nice attempt at a silly little old flame.


Now, what are you saying, are you saying that government studies are biased.


What kind of bias would it have in that case?

There is not special interest groups who are going to underhandedly fund the study.

There are no corporations pushing to fudge data in these settings.

What makes you say otherwise?

I am waiting for one logical answer to the question I have.

Just One!

 

[RandFan]

Warning, the following is patronizing. Sorry but I really couldn't help it. Folks, many of you need to learn at least rudimentary skills.

This is a skeptics forum for crying out loud. We can do better than this.

Take a deep breath Theodore. Anger won't solve this one for you. You are going to have to do a little thinking.

However, if the study is completely privatized, and you have special interests groups running all around you trying to get you to fudge data, and completely obscure facts, would you do it?

Not necessarily. The tobacco scientists managed to get valid data. Data that is used against the tobacco companies to this day.

Yes it is possible but beyond that your argument is specious and presumptuous in light of evidence to the contrary.

Would you do it if these special interests groups said that tehy would fund your entire project?

It happens, it happens in academia, the private sector and yes, in government studies.

The sword swings both ways. Studies that support certain "ideas" receive more funding than those that don't. And there is lot's of money to be made on asbestos abatement and "super fund clean ups. Would you fudge data to give the government what it wanted to hear?

That is what has happened to most of the studies coming from conservative organizations at the moment.

Another "testable" claim. PROVE IT!

And as for Steven Miller himself, he says that DDT does not have any harmful effects.

Ah the death of critical thinking.

Now please, pay attention.

In April 1972, after seven months of testimony, EPA Administrative Law Judge Edmund Sweeney stated that “DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man. ... The uses of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds, or other wildlife. ... The evidence in this proceeding supports the conclusion that there is a present need for the essential uses of DDT.”*

Please note that the evidence is foot marked.

Bull f****** shi**!

This is not arguing, this is simply gainsaying. Is this the best you can do to rebut Milloy's contention? "Profanity is the last refuge of the unimaginative". And a poor replacement for logic and reason.

Don't get me wrong. I can swear with the best of them but I would be very embarrassed if all I could do to rebut an argument is swear.

Look, it is right on his frontpage.

OH NO!, Not his front page? Perhaps Steven Milloy had a reason to put it on his front page? Did you bother to put your thinking cap on and examine his argument. Could you find the argument?

Come on, any rational person would look at that, look at the actual data on DDT and say BULL SH**!

This is what passes for argument where you come from?

Any rational person knows that aliens visited the earth.
Any rational person knows that god lives and answers prayers.
Any rational person knows that the little people keep their pot o' gold at the end of the rainbow.

Where on earth did you learn to debate?

Theodore,

I hate to be condescending but in light of such a poor showing I really have no choice.

Look, an argument is a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition. If you are having trouble understanding the difference between "gainsaying" and arguing then please see The Argument Clinic. Trust me on this one. It is a Monty Python sketch and aside from the fact that it is damn funny it will help you avoid this kind of embarrassment in the future.

Ok, let's break this down.

Steve Milloy's argument,

Proposition: The banning of DDT has harmed more people than it could ever possibly help.

Premise: After 7 months of EPA hearings no evidence was ever produced that showed conclusively that DDT, when used under appropriate guidelines, "do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds, or other wildlife."

Premise: The arbitrarily and capricious banning of DDT has caused an estimated 85 million deaths.

Conclusion: If the premises are correct we can infer that had the EPA not banned DDT 85 million people would not have died at the expense of ignorance.

To show Milloy's argument to be false you would have to show that the his premises are wrong. Either because the data is flawed or simply wrong.

Now, is that what you did? NO!

Let's take a moment to look at your argument.

Theodore's bright and shiny argument.

Statement #1 "Bull f****** shi**!"

Statement #2Look it's on his front page

Statement #3 "Come on, any rational person would look at that, look at the actual data on DDT and say BULL SH**!"

What is your data? Milloy provided data. Why can't you? Proposition, premise, inference, could you outline it for us? Where on earth is it?

One word for your argument Theodore, "fallacious".

1. Argumentum ad hominem : Anyone who disagrees is "not rational". The statement attacks the character and not the argument.
   
2. Argumentum ad populum : Everyone (who is rational) knows Milloys argument is wrong.
   
3. You provide no premise and no data to support your proposition.
   [/list=1] Look, do us all a favor, do yourself a favor, take a moment and check out Logic & Fallacies.
   
   If you already do know this stuff ... ...don't make such a dumb mistake again, ok?

 

[RandFan]

Oh, one more reason your argument (if it can be called an argument) is fallacious.

Straw Man: Steve Milloy never said what you attribute to him.

Come on man .

 

[RandFan]

Now, what are you saying, are you saying that government studies are biased.

They can be. Why do you assume they cant?

Look, more money is paid out by the government in studies than from any other source. Some ideas get more money than others.

Since Asbestos was shown to be harmful the government has spent millions in clean up. There is an entire industry devoted to syponing of the cream. Do you really think the government wants to hear your study that would deny money to all of the contractors who kick back money to the government all of the time.

I am waiting for one logical answer to the question I have.

Just One!

I will answer all of the questions you have. Just keep 'em comming.

Oh, and by the way. Just because there is reason to "fudge" the data is not proof that everyone does "fudge" the data.

The argument is specious.

Oh, and another thing, since you are demanding that your questions be asked. Could you or anyone answer mine and Shanek's?

Would you please supply these government studies that you talk so much about?

 

[dsm]

Ok, let's break this down.

Steve Milloy's argument,

Proposition: The banning of DDT has harmed more people than it could ever possibly help.

Premise: After 7 months of EPA hearings no evidence was ever produced that showed conclusively that DDT, when used under appropriate guidelines, "do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds, or other wildlife."

Premise: The arbitrarily and capricious banning of DDT has caused an estimated 85 million deaths.

Conclusion: If the premises are correct we can infer that had the EPA not banned DDT 85 million people would not have died at the expense of ignorance.

To show Milloy's argument to be false you would have to show that the his premises are wrong. Either because the data is flawed or simply wrong.

Is it my imagination or is there something wrong with the first premise (as in an unintended double negative)? If the first premise stands, it alone would seem to be justification for EPA banning of DDT.

Did I miss something?

 

[curious]

Originally posted Steven Milloy Junk Science
Houghton’s assertion that the 1990s was the warmest decade in the last 1,000 years (search) draws out the question, “Why was it so warm 1,000 years ago?”

Since there were no power plants, factories or automobiles back then, that warm period was obviously natural climate change (search). So why should we leap to the conclusion that any 1990s warming is definitely manmade?

Without doubt there have been huge climate variations that were not manmade but the heart of global warming isn't some debatable interpretation of weather reports. CO2 affects global tempatures, the reason why it does this are clear. CO2 levels are rising, this is especially significant since early global warming theories (as in 19th century) were discounted in part because it was erroneously thought ocean absortion of CO2 would prevent the rising levels we are now seeing. Granted, the climate too complex to suggest just one gas is the reason for any change, but all other things being equal more CO2 will equal higher tempatures.

Originally posted Steven Milloy Junk Science
Of course, it’s not even clear that any measurable “global warming” has really occurred, much less that it’s human-induced.

Hmm, maybe this article is using old data. I'm under the impression that a "warming" of .5 to 1 degree is scientifically accepted.

Originally posted Steven Milloy Junk Science
Satellite and weather balloon measurements of atmospheric temperatures since the 1970s actually indicate slight cooling to no change.

I've heard this before and I honestly I am unsure of what's going on with those figures, I would think the upper atmosphere would be warming also so it does point to an area where GW or our understanding of atmopheric temps need more work. The global rise of .5 to 1 degree based upon land and sea measurements still stands. I did a quick search and found this:

Last year, the US National Academy of Sciences established an expert panel to investigate the vexed question of discrepancies between satellite and surface temperature measurements. The panel concluded that the warming trend in global mean surface temperature over the past twenty years is real, a conclusion not invalidated by the disparity between satellite and surface records. While the discrepancy could not be fully explained, the panel suggested that natural causes, including two massive volcanic eruptions during the past 20 years and depletion of stratospheric ozone, may have had a cooling effect in the mid-troposphere (8-12 km altitude) and reduced the warming in the lower troposphere compared with surface temperatures.
http://www.csiro.au/index.asp?type=featureArticle&id=GlobalWarmingAHotTopic

Originally posted Steven Milloy Junk Science
To the extent any significant warming may have occurred during the 20th century, most occurred before 1940, while most greenhouse gas emissions (search) occurred after 1940 -- so there’s no apparent cause-and-effect relationship.

Here's a chart that makes the relationship between CO2 and global tempature look pretty clear.
http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/millenniumCO2.htm

Originally posted Steven Milloy Junk ScienceWhile it’s possible that some human-induced warming may be occurring, Virginia state climatologist Pat Michaels (search) once pointed out in a television debate with Clinton administration eco-czarina Carol Browner: “The fact of the matter is if you look at those temperature records that you keep on citing, you will see that almost all of the warming takes place in the absolute coldest, most miserable air masses in Siberia and northwestern North America … Great. We've warmed Siberia from minus 40 to minus 38. Big deal.”

I agree limited GW might not be such a bad thing, and might actually have tangible benifits in some areas, certainly warming Siberia 2 degrees is no big deal. If that were the only effect is would be a stupid concern, but the tempature changes should be evaluated because they indicate the accuracy of GW which is making more dire predictions.

Originally posted Steven Milloy Junk ScienceIf the 1990s were unusually warm, we don’t know why. Neither do the global-warming pushers.

It's not an "if", the 1990s were unusually warm. I believe 1998, 2002 and 2003 are the hottest years on record. GW has a working model for what's going on while Milloy seems to still be in denial of tempature readings.

 

[Earthborn]

Come on, get serious. Surely you are not debating the convienent relationship that has existed for decades between USA and Saudi, the wellspring of virulent Islamic fundamentalism.

I am well aware that the US supports the Saudi government, which has a monopoly on Saudi oil. But you have not provided any evidence that the Saudi government funds terrorist organizations. I am pretty sure that it doesn't fund Al Qaeda, since no government in the world would fund rebellion against itself.

I like to see the evidence that they are sponsoring any other terrorist organization, or that any terrorist organization is able to sell oil to fund itself. Is too much to ask?

 

[Brian the Snail]

Originally posted by curious

I've heard this before and I honestly I am unsure of what's going on with those figures, I would think the upper atmosphere would be warming also so it does point to an area where GW or our understanding of atmopheric temps need more work.

He's using old data here, the latest results for the troposphere show a warming trend. Though there's still some question about the satellite measurements- the raw data needs to be corrected (to account for, for example, orbital drift), and this can be done in different ways. This link might be useful:

Previous work on long time series of MSU channel 2 brightness temperatures has been performed by Christy and Spencer. This previous work has played a controversial and high-profile role in the debate over the existence and extent of anthropogenic global climate change. One of the goals of our research is to provide a second complete analysis as a check of these important results. We have found that the temperature of the middle troposphere is warming by approximately 0.126 K/decade, while Christy and Spencer find a smaller warming of approximately 0.043 K/decade.

The 0.126 K/decade result would be close to the surface record, but as your link says, there's no real reason why they should be the same anyway.

By the way, as your link says the stratosphere is cooling quite rapidly, but this is actually consistent with increases in greenhouse gases, though some of it is due to ozone depletion as well.

 

[Brian the Snail]

Junk Science: Of course, it’s not even clear that any measurable “global warming” has really occurred, much less that it’s human-induced.

curious: Hmm, maybe this article is using old data. I'm under the impression that a "warming" of .5 to 1 degree is scientifically accepted.

It is.

Junk Science: To the extent any significant warming may have occurred during the 20th century, most occurred before 1940

Nope.

Junk Science: while most greenhouse gas emissions (search) occurred after 1940 -- so there’s no apparent cause-and-effect relationship.

curious: Here's a chart that makes the relationship between CO2 and global tempature look pretty clear.

You have to be a bit careful here - correlation doesn't imply causation. So you have to use statistical techniques or climate model simulations to see the "fingerprint" of greenhouse gases. I think the studies that have been done pretty much conclude that the warming up to the 1940s was natural, with greenhouse gases becoming increasingly important afterwards. There's a nice summary at the page you linked to here.

 

[Brian the Snail]

As I pointed out in another thread and produced evidence for (which was either ignored or misrepresented by the GW side), the current rate of warming is hardly unprecedented, even in human history. In fact, there's evidence that this kind of warming at this rate occurs every 1500 years. But, I guess we can just do without all that pesky evidence that contradicts what we've already included, right?

Shanek,

I was rather surprised to read this. I don't feel that I ignored or misrepresented your evidence, so I'm at a loss to see how you would feel that I did. In the other thread you made claims about the concentration and rate of increase of CO₂, that I contended were not supported by the articles you cited. I also don't feel that the articles support the claim you make here that the present warming is "hardly unprecendented," though I don't think I've ever questioned that this might be true. In particular, I don't doubt that rapid climate shifts have occured in the past, and that natural variability is a factor in current climate change, I just feel that the current evidence points to humans having a significant influence too. So what is it that I've misrepresented?

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Nice attempt at a silly little old flame.

That wasn't a flame, except as a side note -- DID you previously go under that username?

Now, what are you saying, are you saying that government studies are biased.

No, I am saying the view that a government study -cannot- be biased is incredibly naive, at best. It is hard to even take such a contention seriously.