'Naysayers Guide to Global Warming.

[parmenides3]

We wouldn't want it to be too much of a mouthful.

:lol:

[Hiya]

Don't like the sound of that program towards the end where its gonna get onto ethics, but the beginging sounds intresting.

I'm looking forward to Devonian v. Several Professors.

[Gray-Wolf]

Hows about;

Campaign for Loose ,Irritating Teeth and Oral Reintegration Into Society........I shalln't write out the acronym.....

[acbrixton]

It is often asserted that a number of the climatologists who dismiss AGW receive funding from the oil industry.

1. Does anyone know the approx proportion/numbers of such climatologists who are not in receipt of such funding?

2. Do we know the names of those climatologists not in receipt of that funding?

It strikes me that it would be useful for those on both sides of the debate to know of such climatologists so that their work can be assessed without its veracity/integrity being doubted because of the source of funding.

Regards

ACB

[Admiral_Bobski]

It is often asserted that a number of the climatologists who dismiss AGW receive funding from the oil industry.

1. Does anyone know the approx proportion/numbers of such climatologists who are not in receipt of such funding?

2. Do we know the names of those climatologists not in receipt of that funding?

It strikes me that it would be useful for those on both sides of the debate to know of such climatologists so that their work can be assessed without its veracity/integrity being doubted because of the source of funding.

Regards

ACB

I read an article a while ago (can't remember which one - I'll see if I can find it) about findings by a scientist which seemed to be counter to commonly accepted wisom about AGW. Needless to say that the article was ripped to pieces by various members of the AGW crowd - one of the key points of dismissal was that the scientist was a "petrochemical engineer", and was therefore paid by the oil industry.

The interesting thing about this was the fact that the scientist in question was, in fact, not a "petrochemical engineer" by trade, but a geologist. It is a fact that many geologists, upon leaving university, enter the oil industry, since their expertise in the field of geology gives them the ability to identify potential oil pockets. (In fact when I was looking at going to uni to do a geology degree I was told that it most commonly led to a career in the oil industry - I didn't go to uni in the end, for a variety of reasons, but that's by the by...)

Those who look at historical evidence of climate change, particularly prehistoric evidence, are often geologists or have some geological training. As "jobbing" geologists, many of them do some work for the oil industry from time to time. But to label them as "petrochemical engineers", or to say that they are in the pockets of the oil industry is frequently patently wrong.

To tie this in to ACB's post, I wonder how many scientists studying prehistoric data are dedicated geologists - is it only those geologists who doubt AGW who are automatically branded "petrochemicl engineers"?

:lol:

C-Bob

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

It is often asserted that a number of the climatologists who dismiss AGW receive funding from the oil industry.

1. Does anyone know the approx proportion/numbers of such climatologists who are not in receipt of such funding?

2. Do we know the names of those climatologists not in receipt of that funding?

It strikes me that it would be useful for those on both sides of the debate to know of such climatologists so that their work can be assessed without its veracity/integrity being doubted because of the source of funding.

Regards

ACB

What matters is the quality of the research not where the funding comes from. We don't instantly dismiss every Friends of the Earth press release because they got a six-figure donation from an ignorant celebrity.

Generally, whichever side questions "source of funding" is the side most willing to smear and abuse and least likely to engage in rational discussion of facts.

[Michael Winston]

Do you think that scientists are wrong about GW, then? All of them? Do you think they get paid and keep their jobs, even though they are incompetent?

P

An excellent question, P, and one I think that can't easily be answered. What a great thread this is: it's genuinely fascinating reading everyones' thoughts. Just to throw fat into the fire, I'll cut and paste this thought from Noam Chomsky on the role of scientists and their art:

CHOMSKY: ''Science talks about very simple things, and asks hard questions about them. As soon as things become too complex, science can’t deal with them. The reason why physics can achieve such depth is that it restricts itself to extremely simple things, abstracted from the complexity of the world. As soon as an atom gets too complicated, maybe helium, they hand it over to chemists. When problems become too complicated for chemists, they hand it over to biologists. Biologists often hand it over to the sociologists, and they hand it over to the historians, and so on. But it’s a complicated matter: Science studies what’s at the edge of understanding, and what’s at the edge of understanding is usually fairly simple. ''

Posted without comment. I hope this gives a little food for thought.

Regards,

Mike.

[jethro]

I think that grubbily titled little documentary will need a dedicated thread. But, be warned, I'm in a fighting mood People calling my views a swindle can expect their words to be slung back

Don't really think there's any need for such a combative tone. As far as I am aware, this is the first program giving the other side of the story to be shown on TV. For goodness knows how long now, we've been bombarded wholesale with the pro AGW story. I for one, welcome the program, and if the only thing it achieves is to make people aware that AGW is not the cut and dried story we are led to believe, then that will do for me.

Don't like the sound of that program towards the end where its gonna get onto ethics, but the beginging sounds intresting.

I'm looking forward to Devonian v. Several Professors.

I welcome the ethics discussion, it's about time. We in the developed world have a choice between walking or using the car, we can all cut our own personal carbon footprint and clean up our act, regardless of whether we believe in AGW or not. Cutting Global emissions will impact on some of the poorest nations on earth. If those nations are to be kept in grinding poverty with the ensuing sickness and preventable deaths allowed to continue then I for one think we have a moral duty to make damn sure the science behind those policies is absolutely correct.

[Bobby]

Not suprised that Channel 4 would put out rubbish like that. They often make controversial programmes just for the sake of being controversial, regardless of the merits of the content.

[Michael Winston]

Don't really think there's any need for such a combative tone. As far as I am aware, this is the first program giving the other side of the story to be shown on TV. For goodness knows how long now, we've been bombarded wholesale with the pro AGW story. I for one, welcome the program, and if the only thing it achieves is to make people aware that AGW is not the cut and dried story we are led to believe, then that will do for me.

I welcome the ethics discussion, it's about time. We in the developed world have a choice between walking or using the car, we can all cut our own personal carbon footprint and clean up our act, regardless of whether we believe in AGW or not. Cutting Global emissions will impact on some of the poorest nations on earth. If those nations are to be kept in grinding poverty with the ensuing sickness and preventable deaths allowed to continue then I for one think we have a moral duty to make damn sure the science behind those policies is absolutely correct.

Well said. Check out this further quote from Chomsky:-

''One of the most important comments on deceit, I think, was made by Adam Smith. He pointed out that a major goal of business is to deceive and oppress the public.

And one of the striking features of the modern period is the institutionalization of that process, so that we now have huge industries deceiving the publicand they're very conscious about it, the public relations industry. Interestingly, this developed in the freest countries - in Britain and the US - roughly around time of WWI, when it was recognized that enough freedom had been won that people could no longer be controlled by force. So modes of deception and manipulation had to be developed in order to keep them under control.

And by now these are huge industries. They not only dominate marketing of commodities, but they also control the political system. As anyone who watches a US election knows, it's marketing. It's the same techniques that are used to market toothpaste.

And, of course, there are power systems in place to facilitate this. Throughout history it's been mostly the property holders or the educated classes who've tended to support power systems. And that's a large part of what I think education is - it's a form of indoctrination. You have to reconstruct a picture of the world in order to be conducive to the interests and concerns of the educated classes, and this involves a lot of self-deceit.''

Worth bearing in mind when the experts hold forth.

Regards,

Mike.

Edited March 4, 2007 by Winston

[Mondy]

Not suprised that Channel 4 would put out rubbish like that. They often make controversial programmes just for the sake of being controversial, regardless of the merits of the content.

Entirely the type of crap i'd expect from a person who has already made up their mind about GW/AGW.

I guess you won't be watching it then?

Edited March 4, 2007 by Mondy

[Hiya]

I think some of you need to hang five on the scientists, whom you lable as "imcompetent", personally I think that is a shocking accusation to make of any professional, if the people making those compliments think they can do a better job, get yourself into university for 7 years, to become properly qualified to argue your point.

Reminds me of a conversation I over heard on the train. Insert overwieght impoverished looking mother, and minature daughter on a train to Edinburgh.

Mother: How was school?

Daughter: Crap, my science teacher shouted at me cause I failed my test.

Mother: What did you say to him?

Daughter: I told him his subject was crap.

Mother: Good for you, what has science ever done for us.

[The Eagle]

I think some of you need to hang five on the scientists, whom you lable as "imcompetent", personally I think that is a shocking accusation to make of any professional, if the people making those compliments think they can do a better job, get yourself into university for 7 years, to become properly qualified to argue your point.

Reminds me of a conversation I over heard on the train. Insert overwieght impoverished looking mother, and minature daughter on a train to Edinburgh.

Mother: How was school?

Daughter: Crap, my science teacher shouted at me cause I failed my test.

Mother: What did you say to him?

Daughter: I told him his subject was crap.

Mother: Good for you, what has science ever done for us.

I must have missed something but who labelled the scientists 'imcompetent'? The point is that many here are overlooking the vested interests. Nothing to do with their capability as scientists.

Edited March 4, 2007 by Darkman

[Hiya]

I must have missed something but who labelled the scientists 'imcompetent'? The point is that many here are overlooking the vested interests. Nothing to do with their capability as scientists.

Thats true, because said post has now disappeared

Wasn't aimed at you anyhoo.

PS apologies for previous bad spelling, my edit button has disappeared also. Or maybe I'm going mad.

[Devonian]

Don't really think there's any need for such a combative tone. As far as I am aware, this is the first program giving the other side of the story to be shown on TV. For goodness knows how long now, we've been bombarded wholesale with the pro AGW story. I for one, welcome the program, and if the only thing it achieves is to make people aware that AGW is not the cut and dried story we are led to believe, then that will do for me.

We've been bombarded with the evidence, the data and, yes, the facts. This programme will - well lets see what it does .

Are you open minded? It seems from you last sentence clear you have made up your mind.

[Mondy]

Because i'm in such a good mood today, here's something to appease the AGW/GW brigade before they get themselves pent up and all defensive on the forthcoming 'AGW massacre' about to be revealed on C4, Thursday. Don't purr and coo too much over it when reading! ( ) - it's a bit doomy and gloomy! ( )

The researchers consider it "very unlikely" that the changes observed could be naturally occurring phenomena. They argue that the patterns of regional climate warming and environmental changes match up well with each other. And a similar consistency exists between the scientists' observations and what climate models have predicted would happen as temperatures rise.

Give me strength:

[acbrixton]

What matters is the quality of the research not where the funding comes from. We don't instantly dismiss every Friends of the Earth press release because they got a six-figure donation from an ignorant celebrity.

Generally, whichever side questions "source of funding" is the side most willing to smear and abuse and least likely to engage in rational discussion of facts.

AF: yes I agree but it is a fact that some do use the source of funding as an automatic knockdown argument.

Regards

ACB

[jethro]

We've been bombarded with the evidence, the data and, yes, the facts. This programme will - well lets see what it does .

Are you open minded? It seems from you last sentence clear you have made up your mind.

Dev, your words of "Grubbily titled little documentary" and "calling my views a swindle can expect their words to be slung back", do not mark you out as being even remotely open minded.

I accept the world has been given the evidence, the data and yes the facts, will you accept there is in all likelihood, more evidence, data and facts to be discovered and heard?

My stance is and always has been that yes, I believe the climate is changing, yes I believe we probably have made some impact but what I do not believe, is that we are solely responsible.

I have researched and read opposing views from both sides, both scientific papers and popular media. I have learned enough to be able to read say for instance "Ice Age Now" and "The Weather Makers" to understand and realise both have cherry picked their data. I wouldn't however dream of imagining I have enough knowledge to question the scientific community; I am after all merely a journo turned gardener.

But, when respected scientists raise their hands and say "hang on, what about this" and question the popular wisdom, then they should be heard. This is the whole point of the programme, is it not?

In order to pursue openness there has to be equal opportunity given to both sides, it was you, not I condemning the unheard voice.

[Devonian]

Dev, your words of "Grubbily titled little documentary" and "calling my views a swindle can expect their words to be slung back", do not mark you out as being even remotely open minded.

Nope. I'll watch it and record it. It's the word swindle I object to.

I accept the world has been given the evidence, the data and yes the facts, will you accept there is in all likelihood, more evidence, data and facts to be discovered and heard?

Sure.

My stance is and always has been that yes, I believe the climate is changing, yes I believe we probably have made some impact but what I do not believe, is that we are solely responsible.

Neither do I The sun has played a role, but I think the evidnece is we will play an increasing role.

I have researched and read opposing views from both sides, both scientific papers and popular media. I have learned enough to be able to read say for instance "Ice Age Now" and "The Weather Makers" to understand and realise both have cherry picked their data. I wouldn't however dream of imagining I have enough knowledge to question the scientific community; I am after all merely a journo turned gardener.

But, when respected scientists raise their hands and say "hang on, what about this" and question the popular wisdom, then they should be heard. This is the whole point of the programme, is it not?

In order to pursue openness there has to be equal opportunity given to both sides, it was you, not I condemning the unheard voice.

Yup, other voices should be heard. What I object to is a pejoratively (insulting to some even) titled programme. Do you really expect balance from a programme that, clearly, thinks there's a swindle afoot? Or is it just aimed to poke people like m in the eye? Whatever, balanced it aint. We'll see what the programmes content is.

[parmenides3]

As this is the 'naysayer's guide', I've posted a reference to the programme on the 'alternative theories' thread, probably a better place to discuss it.

Let's try to leave this thread to those who wish to make the appropriate contributions. We can argue about GW on one of the other ones.

:)P

[jethro]

As this is the 'naysayer's guide', I've posted a reference to the programme on the 'alternative theories' thread, probably a better place to discuss it.

Let's try to leave this thread to those who wish to make the appropriate contributions. We can argue about GW on one of the other ones.

:)P

Agreed P3.

[Iceberg]

AF: yes I agree but it is a fact that some do use the source of funding as an automatic knockdown argument.

Regards

ACB

Souce of funding does not matter as long as the science is peer reviewed at the end of it, rather than released as an un-peer reviewed paper, I think this is where funding does come into it.

[acbrixton]

Souce of funding does not matter as long as the science is peer reviewed at the end of it, rather than released as an un-peer reviewed paper, I think this is where funding does come into it.

Agreed!

[Mondy]

Who are the global warming deniers, those scientists who downplay the human cause of climate change, who claim that manmade climate change, if it's occurring at all, may have modest costs or even bring benefits, who claim that the science is not settled on climate change

The deniers I have written about are not just credible; they have reached the pinnacle of the scientific establishment, with credentials to rival those of any of scientists representing the IPCC position.

Most of the deniers I have written about have suffered for their scientific findings – some have been forced from their positions, others lost funding grants or were publicly criticized.

Tol believes that the IPCC bureaucracy is forcing out many of the best who once were part of the IPCC process, and he is also scathingly critical of work he considers bereft of integrity, such as the U.K. government's highly publicized Stern review, which last year painted alarmingly dire scenarios.

"The Stern review does not contribute to this cause. It is so badly researched and argued, and so full of hyperbole, that it is bound to backfire," Tol argued. Although he continues his involvement with the IPCC, those who don't find him pure enough call him a denier still.

All very interesting reading, with other related links at the bottom of the page: http://www.urban-renaissance.org/urbanren/...ContentID=17010

People may not like being called a swindler, but when you have credible scientists standing up to/speaking out against the IPCC then their instantly dismissed as deniars..funny that, eh?

[Bobby]

Well, these 'credible' scientists are still in the exceptional minority, a band of renegade dissidents. The vast majority of the world's climate scientists, meteorologists etc believe in man made global warming. That's the overwhelming scientific consensus, just remember that.

Edit: Heh, apparently they are interviewing Piers Cobryn, the fruitcake who kept on predicting blizzards and "arctic conditions" for us this winter.

Edited March 5, 2007 by Magpie