Climate change denial

[tbewick]

I just read in the news that the Royal Society (Britain's oldest scientific society) has written to ExxonMobil, challenging it to stop funding groups that attempt to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change:

- http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1876538,00.html

ExxonMobil's unscrupulous funding of these organisations, which includes the web site called 'Junk Science', is described in further detail here:

- http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1875762,00.html

You can watch an interview with Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society, on the BBC News website, where he talks about climate change:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/hardtalk/5303482.stm

 

[Mort Corey]

Who funds the Royal Society? Also, what gives them the right to say where Exxon-Mobil (or anyone else for that matter) should spend their money? Not agreeing nor disagreeing on the issuue itself, it just seems disingenous that they seem to be trying to stifle the very debate they are promoting.

Mort (who always follows the money)

 

[sploo]

I'm not sure that they're trying to stifle the debate, they're highlighting the link between ExxonMobil and many organisations that release information favourable to the company.

So, either:

a) The information in the articles is just plain wrong (i.e. lies/misinformation). Note that the Guardian is a well known left wing leaning paper (i.e. more likely to print things in criticism of big business).
b) The information is true (the allegations of payment), but it's merely a coincidence that these groups are receiving funds from a generous ExxonMobil.
c) The information is true, and ExxonMobil actively sets out to pay people to discredit the environmentalist agenda.

Given the likelyhood of being sued, I'd suspect option a) is unlikely. I guess the choice between the other two depends on which side of the fence you already stand.

 

[sholling]

With all respect to the OP.The whole global warming debate is junk science in its purest form. One degree in 100 years? Please… people get a life. There is a well documented billions of years old history of natural 10-20 degree climate swings. Twenty years ago when there was more smog in the US the whacks were screaming about global cooling and a new ice age. FYI: Surprising to some man did not cause Jurassic climate changes.

Termite farts produce far more methane than the entire human race combined, not to mention volcanoes and CO2. Cow and water bufflo farts are up there too. It’s all funding driven research. Produce a report that says that the sky is falling and you get more funding, you get your name in the papers and get published in a left leaning, anti-business “science” journal and that is pure job security and a raise for any half-wit university professor.

BTW: It’s the same sort of junk science that has led to a world wide ban on DDT. Yup everybody knows that DDT weakens eagle eggs – except it’s not true. But now that it’s an envriowacko article of faith DDT has been banned in Africa. The cost? About 1,000,000 black African children’s lives every year to malaria. All lost in the name of junk but very PC science. Was it worth it? Not to me but then I’m not a university professor publicly hoping for a plague to wipe out mankind. Yup your tax dollars pay for freaks teaching that to your kids. What a world we live in.

 

[ARRAY]

Anytime there is opportunity to gain more power and control over a populace it will be capitalized upon, we can bet on that fact. The ubiquitous "war on terror" is one such fraud and so is global warming.

Global warming is cyclical in nature. True, it may have been nudged very slightly by some man made activity, but nature is elastic and compensates. The yin/yang of the universe so to speak. It will come and go. Case in point - the arctic used to be a tropical climate.
However, despite the fact that global warming / cooling is natural, it won't stop those princes in power from coming up with all sorts of new laws, regulations, restrictions, limitations and taxes to help stave off this horrible "man-made" catastrophe. Governments are the biggest pigs on energy consumption, waste and mismanagement out there. They can't say peep one.

It is a sales job, simply put, to rid you of even more of your liberty and hard earned money.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Who funds the Royal Society?

Send them an email and ask. Most likely they are funded as other such organizations, by their members.

Also, what gives them the right to say where Exxon-Mobil (or anyone else for that matter) should spend their money?

You mean they need to have special rights designated by law to express their views? After all, I don't see them using force to enforce what they like to have happen, unlike a government could do.

Not agreeing nor disagreeing on the issuue itself, it just seems disingenous that they seem to be trying to stifle the very debate they are promoting.
Mort (who always follows the money)

Is that what ExxonMobil is trying to do, debate the science, or in fact trying to discredit the science of the facts which is not a debate, but fear-mongering. I wonder who used that tactic not so long ago?

Oh, since you are following the money, perhaps you could check out the funding of those organizations too. I am curious too.

 

[tbewick]

ExxonMobil has replied to the Royal Society by accusing it of "inaccurately and unfairly" depicting the world's largest oil company as a climate change sceptic:

- http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1878449,00.html

Personally, I trust the Royal Society ahead of ExxonMobil, just as I trust doctors advice ahead of tobacco companies.

With all respect to the OP.The whole global warming debate is junk science in its purest form. One degree in 100 years? Please… people get a life. There is a well documented billions of years old history of natural 10-20 degree climate swings. Twenty years ago when there was more smog in the US the whacks were screaming about global cooling and a new ice age. FYI: Surprising to some man did not cause Jurassic climate changes.

Termite farts produce far more CO2 than the entire human race combined, not to mention volcanoes. Cow and water bufflo farts are up there too. It’s all funding driven research. Produce a report that says that the sky is falling and you get more funding, you get your name in the papers and get published in a left leaning, anti-business “science” journal and that is pure job security and a raise for any half-wit university professor.

The Royal Society's list of past-presidents:

* Sir Christopher Wren (1680-1682)
* Samuel Pepys (1684-1686)
* Charles Montagu (1695-1698)
* The Lord Somers (1698-1703)
* Sir Isaac Newton (1703-1727)
* Joseph Banks (1778-1820)
* Sir Humphry Davy (1820-1827)
* The Duke of Sussex (1830-1838)
* The Earl of Rosse (1848-1854)
* Sir Joseph Dalton Hooker (1873-1878)
* Thomas Henry Huxley (1883-1885)
* George Gabriel Stokes (1885-1890)
* The Lord Kelvin (1890-1895)
* The Lord Lister (1895-1900)
* Sir William Huggins (1900-1905)
* The Lord Rayleigh (1905-1908)
* Sir Joseph John Thomson (1915-1920)
* The Lord Rutherford of Nelson (1925-1930)
* Sir William Henry Bragg (1935-1940)
* Sir Henry (Hallett) Dale (1940-1945)
* The Lord May of Oxford (2000-2005)
* The Lord Rees of Ludlow (2005-)

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Royal_Society

I suppose you'd classify these all as half-wits.

 

[sploo]

Yea, that Newton bloke eh... what's he ever done

I think the problem you're going to find is something I've seem many many times, certainly with climate change, and especially when it comes to discussion of current world issues (i.e. bombing the sh!t out of civilians around the world).

Basically, you offer information, facts, and even logical conjecture. The correct response from someone that disagrees should be, "I don't dispute your facts, but I dispute your conclusions, and here's why...", or "I do dispute your facts, and here's why...". Instead, what you usually get is some half-assed rant about why you're the lefty, liberal offspring of one of Clinton's whores.

It's called 'Confirmation Bias'. The Dilbert cartoonist, Scott Adams, summed it up wonderfully in a recent blog entry:

"Have you heard of something called the confirmation bias? Researchers discovered that when people hear an argument that opposes their viewpoint, the rational part of the brain takes a coffee break and the emotional side takes over. The irrational part of your brain then reinterprets reality in a way that lets you keep your dumb viewpoint against all common sense and evidence."

 

[sholling]

ExxonMobil has replied to the Royal Society by accusing it of "inaccurately and unfairly" depicting the world's largest oil company as a climate change sceptic:

- http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1878449,00.html

Personally, I trust the Royal Society ahead of ExxonMobil, just as I trust doctors advice ahead of tobacco companies.



The Royal Society's list of past-presidents:

* Sir Christopher Wren (1680-1682)
* Samuel Pepys (1684-1686)
* Charles Montagu (1695-1698)
* The Lord Somers (1698-1703)
* Sir Isaac Newton (1703-1727)
* Joseph Banks (1778-1820)
* Sir Humphry Davy (1820-1827)
* The Duke of Sussex (1830-1838)
* The Earl of Rosse (1848-1854)
* Sir Joseph Dalton Hooker (1873-1878)
* Thomas Henry Huxley (1883-1885)
* George Gabriel Stokes (1885-1890)
* The Lord Kelvin (1890-1895)
* The Lord Lister (1895-1900)
* Sir William Huggins (1900-1905)
* The Lord Rayleigh (1905-1908)
* Sir Joseph John Thomson (1915-1920)
* The Lord Rutherford of Nelson (1925-1930)
* Sir William Henry Bragg (1935-1940)
* Sir Henry (Hallett) Dale (1940-1945)
* The Lord May of Oxford (2000-2005)
* The Lord Rees of Ludlow (2005-)

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Royal_Society

I suppose you'd classify these all as half-wits.

So you’re saying that all of these people have scientifically proven man is causing a global warming trend? I thought not. I see it as a pretty much an ‘I have no valid argument reply’. In fact a very few lived during closing years of the "little ice age". Heck 20 years ago the same crowd of lefty pseudoscience whores now pimping global warming was wringing its collective(ist) hands over the coming “pollution driven” global ice-age. IMO Newton would B-slap most of today's half-wits that are preaching global warming as simpleton pseudoscience-whores. Like anyone with two brain cells to rub together he'd be screaming that it's all PC “give me funding” and “I hate capitalism” inspired pseudoscience-whoring and PC anti-business driven BS. Put up or shut up. Evidence talks and everything else is BS. The simply totally un-PC problem with the GW theory is that while there is almost zero evidence of a warming trend, there is absolutely zero evidence that man is involved to a scientifically significant degree. The socialists/pseudoscience wackos need to show some evidence or STFU. So far it's all hype. BTW as I’m sure you’d agree "everybody knows" lines simply add to the supposed excess of hot air and does the environment little good. BTW one must keep in mind that with the incestuous thought process common at most universities where Maoism where is often thought of as mainstream - little worth reading ever gets published. Also BTW Chairman Mao’s main hobby seemed to be deflowering prepubescent girls (I like them a bit older – say, 18ish plus - pre 12ish seems a bit gross to me, but ok feel free to accuse me of ethnocentrism ) so unlike many on the left he’s hardly my hero. But who am I to judge. Sorry not PC here!

 

[sholling]

Opps double post.

 

[tbewick]

So you’re saying that all of these people have scientifically proven man is causing a global warming trend? I thought not. I see it as a pretty much an ‘I have no valid argument reply’. In fact a very few lived during closing years of the "little ice age". Heck 20 years ago the same crowd of lefty pseudoscience whores now pimping global warming was wringing its collective(ist) hands over the coming “pollution driven” global ice-age. IMO Newton would B-slap most of today's half-wits that are preaching global warming as simpleton pseudoscience-whores. Like anyone with two brain cells to rub together he'd be screaming that it's all PC “give me funding” and “I hate capitalism” inspired pseudoscience-whoring and PC anti-business driven BS. Put up or shut up. Evidence talks and everything else is BS. The simply totally un-PC problem with the GW theory is that while there is almost zero evidence of a warming trend, there is absolutely zero evidence that man is involved to a scientifically significant degree. The socialists/pseudoscience wackos need to show some evidence or STFU. So far it's all hype. BTW as I’m sure you’d agree "everybody knows" lines simply add to the supposed excess of hot air and does the environment little good. BTW one must keep in mind that with the incestuous thought process common at most universities where Maoism where is often thought of as mainstream - little worth reading ever gets published. Also BTW Chairman Mao’s main hobby seemed to be deflowering prepubescent girls (I like them a bit older – say, 18ish plus - pre 12ish seems a bit gross to me, but ok feel free to accuse me of ethnocentrism ) so unlike many on the left he’s hardly my hero. But who am I to judge. Sorry not PC here!

I can't accept that you are calling the members of the Royal Society 'a bunch of pseudoscience wackos'. I'm not a climatologist so I can't offer an argument in defence of the scientific data. In the Scientific American, I did read a response to a book that was critical of data supporting man's involvement in climate change. This book, which I can't remember the title of, was published by Oxford University Press and written by a European statistician. It gained a good deal of publicity. The response from the researchers, whose data he had used, was that he had misrepresented their data. For example, in his projections of temperature increases, he had used the lowest and most optimistic reading of the data, i.e. if the error in the data was (3.0 +/-0.7) degrees celsius, he used the value 2.3. This is not scientifically valid. Even the aim of this book was flawed. The author was not an expert in the field. He had ignored the conclusions of the experts who had actually researched the data. Their conclusions would, of course, not have stood in isolation, but would have been peer-reviewed.

I think that the members of the Royal Society know far more about the research on climate change than you do and are in a better position to draw conclusions.

If you knew anything of the history of science, you would know that scientists often get into hot water over the findings of their research. I can't think of a better example than Galileo, whose conclusions were as politically incorrect as you can get.

Edit: the person I was thinking of was Bjorn Lomborg, author of the book The Skeptical Environmentalist. He's an economist, not a statistician.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I can't accept that you are calling the members of the Royal Society 'a bunch of pseudoscience wackos'. I'm not a climatologist so I can't offer an argument in defence of the scientific data. In the Scientific American, I did read a response to a book that was critical of data supporting man's involvement in climate change. This book, which I can't remember the title of, was published by Oxford University Press and written by a European statistican. It gained a good deal of publicity. The response from the researchers, whose data he had used, was that he had misrepresented their data. For example, in his projections of temperature increases, he had used the lowest and most optimistic reading of the data, i.e. if the error in the data was (3.0 +/-0.7) degrees celsius, he used the value 2.3. This is not scientifically valid. Even the aim of this book was flawed. The author was not an expert in the field. He had ignored the conclusions of the experts who had actually researched the data. Their conclusions would, of course, not have stood in isolation, but would have been peer-reviewed.

I think that the members of the Royal Society know far more about the research on climate change than you do and are in a better position to draw conclusions.

If you knew anything of the history of science, you would know that scientists often get into hot water over the findings of their research. I can't think of a better example than Galileo, whose conclusions were as politically incorrect as you can get.

This is why I left you to respond so eloquently to that silly post
You did a much better job of it. I may have lost my cool as well.
Some people like science when it supports their beliefs and faith and oppose it when it doesn't. Interesting.

 

[sploo]

This is why I left you to respond so eloquently to that silly post
You did a much better job of it.

He did indeed. I was just amused at how well sholling illustrated my point about confirmation bias... I mean... jeez... wtf has the fact that Mao was a kiddie fiddler got to do with climate change. Barking.

The ranters totally miss the point that it's not about who shouts loudest, or can call the other guy the worst names, it's about examining the facts.

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

This debate isn't so cut and dry as many would have you believe. There's some good unbiased info at the site below if you're not up on the topic. Whether the earths temperature rises or falls, one needs to understand the role of fossil fuel emissions and greenhouse gases.

Changes in average temperature of 4-5 degrees f. (some say that's high) in either direction would wipe out most life on our planet. If we as humans contribute .5 to 1 degree of temperature change to the above figure, that could represent up to 25% of offsetting the balance of nature.

We won't see it in our lifetime, but don't forget the last ice age only ended ~10,000 years ago. We've already mapped out 2000+ years of documented human existance. We're just a blip on the earths map - maybe a shorter blip.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warmin

 

[tbewick]

This debate isn't so cut and dry as many would have you believe. There's some good unbiased info at the site below if you're not up on the topic. Whether the earths temperature rises or falls, one needs to understand the role of fossil fuel emissions and greenhouse gases.

Changes in average temperature of 4-5 degrees f. (some say that's high) in either direction would wipe out most life on our planet. If we as humans contribute .5 to 1 degree of temperature change to the above figure, that could represent up to 25% of offsetting the balance of nature.

We won't see it in our lifetime, but don't forget the last ice age only ended ~10,000 years ago. We've already mapped out 2000+ years of documented human existance. We're just a blip on the earths map - maybe a shorter blip.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warmin

Thanks for the link.

This link might also be worth visiting:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change

This would probably only interest Brits:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/

The Conservative Party is the UK equivalent of the Republican party. In their energy policy review, their objective is to reduce carbon emissions:

'The strategic objectives for Britain's future energy policy should be to reduce carbon emissions from the electricity supply industry and to guarantee affordable security of electricity supply.'

- http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=campaigns.display.page&obj_id=130755

I included this just to show that dealing with climate change should not be party-political issue. In fact, the Conservatives have been pressing the government to factor-in reduction of carbon output in all their policies.

 

[tbewick]

One other link for further info, from the Royal Society website:

"We have invited five members of the Royal Society's 'family' of scientists to give their personal opinions on climate change.

Dr Tim Palmer FRS
Writing from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, Dr Palmer tackles the uncertainties involved in weather forecasting but says "uncertainty is not a reason for inaction".

Professor F Sherwood Rowland ForMemRS
A Nobel Prize winning atmospheric chemist and Foreign Member of the Royal Society, Professor Sherwood explains that the earth will continue to warm even when we control emissions.

Dr Peter J Mumby
Dr Mumby is a marine biologist and Royal Society University Research Fellow based at Exeter University. His contribution uses video to demonstrate the effect of climate change on coral reefs.

Professor Carl Wunsch ForMemRS
Writing from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Professor Wunsch examines the difficulties of extracting the effects of man-made climate change from naturally occuring fluctuations.

Dr Simon L Lewis
Dr Lewis is a Royal Society funded University Research Fellow studying the ecology of tropical forests. In this essay he focuses on modelling difficulties, and the effect of climate change on the world's poor."

you can read the full essays here:

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=4607

 

[Audioholics]

simpleton pseudoscience...

Please watch the language or you won't be allowed to carry on with the debate here... No need to get upset, just argue the points.

 

[tbewick]

I know I'm banging the drum a bit here, but this link does go some way to addressing sholling's desire for more on the evidence of anthropogenic climate change:

"Facts and fictions about climate change

It has become fashionable in some parts of the UK media to portray the scientific evidence that has been collected about climate change and the impact of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities as an exaggeration. Some articles have claimed that scientists are ignoring uncertainties in our understanding of the climate and the factors that affect it. Some have questioned the motives of the scientists who have presented the most authoritative assessments of the science of climate change, claiming that they have a vested interest in playing up the potential effects that climate change is likely to have.

This document examines twelve misleading arguments (presented in bold typeface) put forward by the opponents of urgent action on climate change and highlights the scientific evidence that exposes their flaws. It has been prepared by a group led by Sir David Wallace FRS, Treasurer of the Royal Society, and Sir John Houghton FRS, former chair of Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This document has been endorsed by the Council of the Royal Society, and draws primarily on scientific papers published in leading peer-reviewed journals and the work of authoritative scientific organisations, such as the IPCC and the United States National Academy of Sciences."

- http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=4761

The pdf file is available at the website above.