There seems to be three main ways of discrediting any scepticism of Antrhopogenic Theory of Global Warming (AGW theory) by the the pro AGW theory lobby in this forum-
1. Accuse scientists who are sceptics of the AGW theory of being dishonest- The argument here is that as some of these scientists have funding from oil industry and other big business, they have produced bad research to suit the needs of private business. In putting forward this line of argument, what is conveniently forgotten that the pro AGW scientists have also received huge funding from business and most notably from governments. If that does not prevent pro AGW scientists to produce good research (peer review and other checks and balances) why it should prevent scientists who are sceptics to produce good research?
2. Accuse any sceptics of AGW theory being in bed with holocaust deniers and creationists- The logic here is that scepticism of AGW theory is irrational just like the irrational people who denies holocaust and evolution. This argument of course also conveniently associates the strength of the AGW theory with theory of evolution. Comparing the uncertainty of AGW theory with the uncertainty of theory of evolution can be only described as bad science at best.
3. Point to the fact that majority of scientists subscribe to the AGW theory and take this as proof of its 'reality'- The important thing to note is that there are reputed scientists who do not subscribe to the AGW theory and more importantly tries to explain the phenemenon by forwarding an alternate theory that does not have 'carbon' as part of the causal mechanism. Note that this where the comparison between evolutionary theory and AGW theory breaks down. While the creationists does not have an alternate causal explanation (except invoking the presence of an intelligent designer), the scientists who are not buying into AGW theory has an alternate theory which tries explain the phenemenon in a different way.
The point I am trying make here is that if the pro AGW theory lobby wants to convince the general public of the veracity of its claims, it has to go beyond taking cheap shots at documentary film makers, scientists and making dishonest association of sceptics of AGW theory with other sceptics who may be truly irrational.
Excellent posting. I have identified a fourth one which is carpet-bombing sceptical threads with ramdom and obscure pieces of junk and links, so diverting the thread from a sensible debate.
If the desperation shown by the pro-AGW contributors in this forum is representative of the movement then it is clearly doomed. Common sense will prevail in the end.
Unfortunately, I don't think the pro AGW movement is doomed. The main reason why the AGW theory will go from strength to strength is that it blames humans for global warming. As soon you have humans as part of the causal explanations, all kind of politician, social scientists and activists start rubbing their palm with glee as it gives them an excuse to do something.
So the AGW theory has legs in it that has nothing do with the science of it. But this makes scepticism of the AGW theory all the more important to exist
1) There is 50 years of evidence that corportate funding leads to skewed resuls. The pharmaceutic industry and the tobacco industry are good examples. The Royal Society has complained to ExxonMobile and written an open letter.
2) Nothing wrong with scepticism. Everything wrong with the tactics used by many of the so-called "sceptics". The comparison with Holocaust deniers is about the argument of free-speech. Free-speech is good but requires responsibility.
3)The fact that the vast majority of scientists have come to the conclusion that man-made CO2 is responsible is not proof, anyone that suggests that is wrong. But it does imply a very high-probability that it is the cause. To not accept that high-probability is to pick your science like a sweet in a sweet-shop to suit your own taste.
And remember that those who cast stones shouldn't live in glass-houses.
1) Half of Martin Durkin's documentary led to the conclusion that 1000's of scientists are conspiring against the public because it is the only way they will get funding. This is paranoid. Yes there is Paul Reiter in 2001, and the politics of the IPCC has to be questioned. But to make a quantum leap and suggest that 1000's of scientists haven't examined all the facts and come to their own conclusions but instead have taken side just for money is ridiculous. Whereas half-a-dozen scientists taking money from corporations to manipulate the science is far more plausable.
2) The sceptics are just as bad. Both sides are guilty of inflammatory remarks. I've been accused of being an "eco-Nazi" and using Soviet-style tactics. I have never sent anyone to the gulags as yet!
3) The sceptics try to give the impression that half the scientists are sceptical of man-made climate-change when there are very few sceptics. I agree this doesn't prove anything. However it has to be taken into consideration. If they want people to accept the uncertainty that have to also accept the high-probability that climate-change is man-made. This is similar to the link between HIV/AIDS.
2) I agree there is a lot of inflammatory comparisons. The debate is heated and I have been guilty as have you (I think). There is no doubt a lot of politics in this and everyone veers of the science.
That said since, I am sure you will agree that there is uncertainty in the science then there is the possibility (however probable or unlikely) of global catastrophe. In which case people are inflamed because they believe they are trying to save the world from mass death. So although free-speech is welcome and sceptical science is necessary, those who use propaganda against man-made climate-change may be unwittingly condemning millions of people to death. They may not but due to the uncertainty, we shouldn't take chances.
3) Ideally, we wait until the science is clear. But when we are racing against the clock, as in the case with HIV/AIDS, choices have to be made on probability. If we do nothing and wait there is the chance that the problem of man-made climate change is irreversible. Alternatively if we do something, the worst case scenario is we slow the global economy.
Hi Robbie, I really don't want to sound nasty but I think it is typical for you to explain by pointing to a link!
What I meant about changing color is that both pro and anti AGW theory scientists have published in peer reviewed science, and if you accept that peer review science has the checks and balances in it, then it does not matter where the funds has come from. After pro AGW scientists have also received big money from the government and government do benefit from a validation of AGW theory (taxes and punitive tariffs on developing nations)
2. I take issue with the fact that you are equating scepticism of AGW theory with that of exercise of free speech leading to loss of innocent life. This is blatantly unfair and untrue (one can equally argue that accepting AGW theory and its policy implications will consign billion of people in developing nations to continuing poverty and the death that rise from such abject poverty. I know the utter despairness of poverty in developing nations- I come from one)
3. I think the issue I raised is that of science and not of policies
Links can be a good way of providing evidence. In this instance it shows the concerns of two well-established organisations of how corporate funding is damaging scientific research.
However, I concede it is true that the science should in principle be taken on its merits not its funding.
But then, on that basis, you would have to concede that Martin Durkin was wrong in GGWS for suggesting that scientists have produced results in favour of man-made climate change because of government grants. Do you concede this point?
The problem is that there is so much propaganda. And to be fair it is probably on both sides. There are lobbyists dressed up as research institutes spilling out "scientific research" when they are politically motivated. This is clouding the whole argument.
I could have provided many links but I chose the Royal Society and BMJ because they are well-established and less likely to be politically motivated than something like CATO institute on one side or perhaps Union of Concerned Scientists on the other.
2) I am not equating anything, I am providing an explanation for the analogies. I agree though, that both sides are weakened by those kind of analogies.
3) Going back to your original third point. Cheap shots? It is bad if sceptical scientists are dismissed purely for being sceptical. They should feel free to argue without intimidation. However in terms of documentary-makers, Martin Durkin gets everything he deserves because he is guilty of all the sins you accuse (what you call) of pro-AGW people.
1) Martin Durkin rubbished 1000s of scientists and their findings on the basis of their funding.
2) He acccused the green vote of being a coherent force of sinister people, that is undermining democracy. By naming the program with "swindle" is to imply their is a huge conspiracy and a certainty that climate change is caused naturally. This is a distortion of the fact that there is uncertainty.
3) Rather than argue on the basis on a minority but valid view, he implied that without coercion most scientists would be sceptical of man-made climate change. This is wrong.
RobbieWriter, after going through the links you provided, I think this is precise form of disinformation that the pro AGW lobby here is spreading. The link to Royal Society talks about some corporate publications of ExxonMobil with which the Royal Society takes issue with. Corporate publications are not peer reviewed science.
One can have accuse the British Governement with similar publications when they came up with the Stern report which is a blueprint to increase domestic taxes and impose punitive tariffs on developing countries
Corporate and government publications share the common trait of pushing forward an agenda that suits their purposes, but they are not to be confused with peer reviewed science
Disinformation? Yes I see your point that it says "corporate publications" in one sentence, but as you have done before you fail to mention another part: Just below it says:
"This letter followed a meeting which had taken place at the request of ExxonMobil where the Society raised concerns about Exxon's position on climate change and the company's funding of lobby groups that misrepresented the science."
Did you read that sentence and do you accept how it relates to your original point at the beginning of the thread:
"The argument here is that as some of these scientists have funding from oil industry and other big business, they have produced bad research to suit the needs of private business"
It is unfair to criticise me for disinformation and to be frank a little paranoid. I want to argue on a fair basis. I could jump to conclusions why you are pulling out elements of an argument and taking them out of context. But I accept we are all hammering away at the keyboard and perhaps miss things, misunderstand arguments etc.
You may have missed my argument, I will give you the benefit of doubt and repeat it again-
Both pro and anti AGW scientists receive funding. Without funding research is not possible. Both pro and anti AGW scientists receive funding from big business. Pro AGW scientists also receive big funding from the government. When both pro and anti AGW scientists publish in peer reviewed journals, we have to accept that it is good research acceptable by the standards of scientific community.
Now please stop making silly arguments and quit if there is none to make
Condemning your opponents rather than addressing their arguments is intellectual cowardess. That goes for Durkin and anyone on this forum who does it. Hansen receieved a $250,000 grant from the Heinz Foundation(as in Theresa Kerry Heinz) but I will defend him against anyone who slanders his work based on his association with the Kerrys.
Bill Gray and Chris Landsea are not industry funded. William Gray and Chris Landsea are 2 respected skeptics, not funded by industry.
You keep missing the point. It's not the raw science in itself that we are sceptical of. What we are sceptical of is the motives of people like you.
Your incontinent linking to cherry-picked titbits from the 'experts' amounts to little more than "the sky's falling in - you ask my Dad!!" We've all got the point that you (and your small band of accomplices) are fed up with modern, democratic society and the demands it places on you to join in... but you always refuse our invitations to reveal any details of what you wish to replace it with. Who does that make a 'denier'?
Only then will you give us all a chance of voting FOR something you've made visible rather than AGAINST all the things in the real world which seem to frustrate you so much.
Originally posted by What's in your mind: You may have missed my argument, I will give you the benefit of doubt and repeat it again-
Both pro and anti AGW scientists receive funding. Without funding research is not possible. Both pro and anti AGW scientists receive funding from big business. Pro AGW scientists also receive big funding from the government. When both pro and anti AGW scientists publish in peer reviewed journals, we have to accept that it is good research acceptable by the standards of scientific community.
Now please stop making silly arguments and quit if there is none to make
quote:
Originally posted by Robbie Writer: However, I concede it is true that the science should in principle be taken on its merits not its funding
So I already have. "Silly arguments" is subjective, so I shall ignore that.
If you look at research in the peer review journals there are practically no papers that dispute man-made climate change. Would you like a link What's In Your Mind?
Originally posted by What's in your mind: Here we have another one of the 'link' brigade. Throwing some random links does not make an cogent argument. Learn to form sentences and make sense.
There has to be a better bunch of pro AGW lobby. Where are they?
do you mean skeptical yank? I thought he was arguing in favour of scepticism, in other words he is on your side.
Links are a legitimate method of evidence. I can't see your problem with them.
I have journal articles that are peer reviewed that questions the AGW theory. What do you mean by 'practically no papers'? Is this another metaphor to hid behind?
You keep missing the point. It's not the raw science in itself that we are sceptical of. What we are sceptical of is the motives of people like you.
Your incontinent linking to cherry-picked titbits from the 'experts' amounts to little more than "the sky's falling in - you ask my Dad!!" We've all got the point that you (and your small band of accomplices) are fed up with modern, democratic society and the demands it places on you to join in... but you always refuse our invitations to reveal any details of what you wish to replace it with. Who does that make a 'denier'?
Only then will you give us all a chance of voting FOR something you've made visible rather than AGAINST all the things in the real world which seem to frustrate you so much.
Well your scepticism of motives by people like me is quite evident, and frankly paranoid.
I will ignore you rabid diatribe. Yes I link to evidence on the web. That makes sense.
You say I am fed up with modern, democratic society? Can you quote me from a previous post. You won't be able to.
On the contrary, it is the so called sceptics (or paranoid conspiracy theorists) who keep pointing to the fact that politicians have jumped on the bandwagon as some kind of proof that there is a scientific conspiracy, to extract more taxes from the public.
Now, I can quote numerous examples on this forum.
I am surprised as you are probably disappointed that the politicians are responding to people's concerns about the environment. But that is democracy and I am happy about that.
Originally posted by What's in your mind: I have journal articles that are peer reviewed that questions the AGW theory. What do you mean by 'practically no papers'? Is this another metaphor to hid behind?
Can you name them? Can I read them?
Yes "practically no papers" is wrong I should have said "very few".
In fact in an analysis of 928 papers published in scientific journals, that particular analysis found no papers that disagreed with the consensus view on anthropogenic climate change.
Well you can't argue that politicians ARE extracting more taxes on the basis of the AGW theory. We all have already started paying more for flights and developing nations would soon start paying for use of any carbon. These are facts not conspiracy theories.
Government income comes from taxes- another undisputed fact, and more tax means more government income. Now it is also an undisputable fact that the British Government has been one of the largest funder of the AGW theory.
Now nobody is suggesting that there is a conspiracy between the government and the scientist but rather the conflict of interest is similar to Corporates funding research with the expectation that the outcome of reesarch may be favorable to them.
Now the government may have convinced you that higher taxes are better for you, they are are yet to convince me of the same
Originally posted by What's in your mind: Infact RobbieWriter you are so frequently wrong, I will pass, on the offer of the 'link'
Fair enough.
But please do tell us the titles/authors of the articles you mentioned. This is your opportunity to provide scientific evidence of your side of the argument.
I tell you what - here is a link www.scholar.google.com . Go to the link and type in the relevant query about problems with AGW theory and see the results. I am not here to do your research work
