[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

In scientific terms I'd tend to fill up the "non-credible" bin with those who simply don't do any work in the field they're talking about. I mean, scientists have opinions just like anyone else; just because a physicist doesn't think global warming is real, doesn't mean he's any more knowledgeable about the subject than anyone else on the street. Unfortunately, a large number of these types get quoted as "proof".

I'm interested to hear your evaluation of the title character of this thread. You know, in light of what you just said.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Well I think there's a subtle difference there. Al Gore isn't quoted as "proof". What Gore does is merely act as a self-appointed public spokesman for a body of scientific work.

For example, there probably hasn't been anyone in this thread going "Arctic ice is melting quickly" and providing an Al Gore quote to validate that statement. On the other hand, much of the thread is rife with quotes from people (like the Weather Network dude) in support of anthropogenic global warming skepticism.

But I'm admittedly not such a big fan of Gore, The Man. I think his film was surprisingly solid from a scientific point of view, and almost all of the criticisms of that film stem from nuances and/or niggling one way or the other; his overall points seem valid. As has been pointed out however, as a spokesman his way of life seems quite at odds with his talk.

greg

[Uncle Skeleton]

Maybe he's a pod person

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

In today's world of commercial patronage, I also put those who don't do scientific work, but make their living from speeches and receiving payments from a particular industry in the non-credible bin, too.

Fair enough, so long as you include groups like Green-Peace and the Sierra Club as well.

You might not like claims of "industry hacks", but the reality is that it's all too real. When you quote people like Fred Singer, you're quoting a "professional skeptic"; one who doesn't make money from scientific work and/or grants and/or tenure, but who makes money from taking unpopular sides in controversial issues, and getting paid both for speaking his side and from the industry supporting his side. There's simply no credibility which can be accorded such a "scientist." greg

I did not quote Dr. Fred Singer. I merely cited a compilation of abstracts collected by Singer, but let's take a look at this guy for a quick second;

- invented instrumentation for measuring stratospheric ozone.
- principal investigator on a satellite experiment retrieved by the space shuttle in 1990
- Research Professor at George Mason University and professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia.

His resume includes;
- Ph.D. in physics, Princeton University
- Chief Scientist, U.S. Department of Transportation
- Deputy Assistant Administrator for Policy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
- Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water Quality and Research, U.S. Department of the Interior
- founding Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami
- First Director of the National Weather Satellite Service
- Director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Maryland
- Published more than 400 technical papers in scientific, economic, and public policy journals.

He enjoys tenure not only through the University of Virginia, but his work spans through two other Universities as well with the following awards of achievement;

- Special Commendation from the White House for achievements in artificial earth satellites
- U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal Award for the development and management of the U.S. weather satellite program.
- The first Science Medal from the British Interplanetary Society.

Of course we discuss this in context of the realization that The IPCC itself is not necessarily "a group of scientists". Make no mistake about the political nature of this group. It is a panel set up by the UN with representatives from approximately 140 governments; a significant number simply authors and editors. Their job is to consider what we currently know about climate change based on working groups of scientists commissioned for very specific areas of research with subsequent grants to conduct their work.

While Dr. Fred Singer is outspoken and opinionated, he's reserved at least as much right to speak on these matters as Al Gore. Your assessment of "zero credibility at all" is a bit of a stretch IMO.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Singer has or does publicly cast doubt on the link between secondhand smoke and cancer, the link between CFCs and ozone hole depletion, the link between solar rays and skin cancer, and the link between human emissions and global warming.

He's a professional shill. As I've demonstrated in this thread, most of the arguments he's used in the past 10 years have been blatant lies, mixed in with just enough truth to cast doubt on the issue. To my knowledge he hasn't been involved in any research worth mentioning since the mid-90s, and that's been sporadic at best over the past 20 years.

You can list his "distinguished career" all you want; he's still a professional shill. When you combine it with the fact that he consistently lies all the time, and changes his opinion to best suit the prevailing public sentiment, well, that gives him zero credibility. You simply can't argue this.

greg

[shabbasuraj]

Singer = Shill

[tie]

ebuddy, when you cite shills as your sources, that makes you a shill. Do you still cite Curveball in your Iraq posts?

[shabbasuraj]

I love reading this stuff...we should all take turns editing it for the 'better'...

Fred Singer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[ebuddy]

You people are hopeless. You're not reading for context, you're not reading for comprehension. In fact, in a thread about Al Gore you're apparently not reading at all.

I'm glad we were able to dumb this thing down to the point where some of you would feel comfortable enough to contribute.

[stupendousman]

Gore = Shill

..wow..that was easy!

(things are always easier when you rely on "poisoning the well" and "appeal to authority" type logical fallacies)

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Again, as I have noted, ebuddy brought up some very good sources to support his claims regarding anthropogenic global warming. He also brought up some very bad ones. That is that. The bandwagoners jumping on board but unwilling to enter into serious debate are not needed.

Kevin, stupendous et al. seem not to be able to realize that logical fallacies are only logical fallacies if they are used without regard to the argument, ie. used misleadingly. They are both valid argument tactics, and strengthen an argument, if used in conjunction with effective rebuttals of those arguments.

Thus, if someone brings up arguments by Fred Singer, they are appealing to authority. And, (as in this thread) I somehow rebut those arguments, and on top of that show that Mr. Singer is not a valid/appropriate/legit authority, then that's a valid argument, not "poisoning the well."

Some of you guys need "Debate 101".

greg

[shabbasuraj]

Classic 5th Estate Denial Machine piece by Bob McKeown .....interview with Fred 'I AM AN EXPERT ON ANYTHING AS LONG AS YOU FUND MY RESEARCH" Singer....

vintage....

YouTube - Fred Singer "The Denial Machine" Clip

[BadKosh]

How about the UN's claims of 1/3 of the species gone....yadda, yadda. yadda.......Shills as well?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Cannot compute, needs more info.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You people are hopeless. You're not reading for context, you're not reading for comprehension. In fact, in a thread about Al Gore you're apparently not reading at all.

I'm glad we were able to dumb this thing down to the point where some of you would feel comfortable enough to contribute.

ebuddy, you are arguing that smoking doesn't cause cancer, right? Is this dumb enough for you?

In the last argument we got into, you argued that cutting taxes always increases revenue, and used a Treasury Dept study that said the exact opposite to buttress your claim. Then we have Iraq... I really think you need to pay a little more attention to your sources.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

ebuddy, you are arguing that smoking doesn't cause cancer, right? Is this dumb enough for you?

No, but I'll let your entirely irrelevant and dishonest post speak for what is dumb enough around here.

In the last argument we got into, you argued that cutting taxes always increases revenue, and used a Treasury Dept study that said the exact opposite to buttress your claim.

You apparently followed that discussion as closely as you're following this one.

Then we have Iraq... I really think you need to pay a little more attention to your sources.

Iraq is what it is. No one has been able to convince me that anything would have been different under any other Administration. You're welcome to start another thread with any one of your favorite topics.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Kevin, stupendous et al. seem not to be able to realize that logical fallacies are only logical fallacies if they are used without regard to the argument, ie. used misleadingly. They are both valid argument tactics, and strengthen an argument, if used in conjunction with effective rebuttals of those arguments.

A logical fallacy is a logical fallacy. There are never times when logical fallacies are valid argument tactics. Never. That's why the majority of the arguments in this thread are pretty much meaningless. Someone posts something that can't be refuted conclusively with science and then starts with the "shill" remarks and the logical fallacies. Smart people can see through this. It's not rocket science.

Thus, if someone brings up arguments by Fred Singer, they are appealing to authority.

Uh..no. You apparently don't know what an "appeal to authority" is. An appeal to authority is where you defend a position based on WHO a person is. I don't see many people saying "because Fred Signer says". If someone presents an argument that Singer made, then something disparaging is said about him in refutation, then that is a 'poisoning the well" logical fallacy. It doesn't matter who someone is...what matters is their argument. When you argue against THE PERSON you are engaging in a logical fallacy and you have lost the argment.

Sure, you can try and both debate the argument AND engage in logical fallacies, but that hurts your position - it doesn't help it. A strong argument doesn't need irrational appeals.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If someone presents an argument that Singer made, then something disparaging is said about him in refutation, then that is a 'poisoning the well" logical fallacy. It doesn't matter who someone is...what matters is their argument. When you argue against THE PERSON you are engaging in a logical fallacy and you have lost the argment.

That's when I pretty much lost interest in this thread. I cited a compilation of scientist's works that by their very nature, challenge aspects of AGW and I get a host of accusations regarding the compiler. Absolutely nothing about the data compiled. Then I was accused of quoting Fred Singer (never did) then the subsequent character assassinations of the man I never quoted. I ended up being accused of believing second-hand smoke doesn't cause cancer and Iraq was a good thing. It just gets patently ridiculous around here sometimes.

It seems too many are more interested in political climate than global climate. There's nothing you can say against this, but let it display itself in all its splendor. As you can see, it never ends...

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Uh..no. You apparently don't know what an "appeal to authority" is. An appeal to authority is where you defend a position based on WHO a person is. I don't see many people saying "because Fred Signer says"

You may not have read it, but this issue has been addressed on a previous page. No one posting in this thread is qualified to understand or develop scientific arguments on global warming. Thus, every scientific argument presented thus far has been an appeal to authority.

It is unfortunate, but on a complicated and specialized issue such as this one, "authorities" are all we have – we just don't understand the scientific issue well enough to argue it amongst ourselves. In regards to policy arguments, now, there would be some leeway in individual development of arguments, but on these scientific issues each of us "argues" by presenting information and opinion presented by authoritative experts in the field.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

That's when I pretty much lost interest in this thread. I cited a compilation of scientist's works that by their very nature, challenge aspects of AGW and I get a host of accusations regarding the compiler. Absolutely nothing about the data compiled. Then I was accused of quoting Fred Singer (never did) then the subsequent character assassinations of the man I never quoted. I ended up being accused of believing second-hand smoke doesn't cause cancer and Iraq was a good thing. It just gets patently ridiculous around here sometimes.

It seems too many are more interested in political climate than global climate. There's nothing you can say against this, but let it display itself in all its splendor. As you can see, it never ends...

You can claim innocence all you want, but you're lying. You quoted Fred Singer - in fact, you posted (and quoted from) a Singer article based on his book Unstoppable Global Warming, which he co-wrote with Dennis Avery. The entire discussion of D-O cycles was brought up by YOU, based on the claims in that article, which was written by Singer and Avery. Your memory is conveniently short when it comes to pleading innocent, I see.

We had comprehensive debate about the data/articles/research you supplied which dragged on and on for pages...and you now claim that no one would do so? That's just lame.

greg

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

You may not have read it, but this issue has been addressed on a previous page. No one posting in this thread is qualified to understand or develop scientific arguments on global warming. Thus, every scientific argument presented thus far has been an appeal to authority.

Uh..no. Again, unless they are arguing based on the SOURCE. I don't see too many people on the anti-mmgw side doing that because it's pretty clear what the response will be - "shill...shill...shill" regardless of the strength of their argument. On the other hand, that's the card that's ALWAYS played in opposition. Someone brings up an point of debate and SINCE most aren't qualified to debate, they resort to the logical fallacies. You're really helping to prove my point.

While I might not be a rocket scientist, I've got an above average intelligence and can see where people are making concrete statements about things that NO ONE is qualified to make (since the science does not yet exist to prove the matters in question conclusively). You may very well have to rely on the strength of your appeals to authority logical fallacies in order to join in - I just don't think that others have that same problem, and if they do they just need to STFU from the get go as well.

[Uncle Skeleton]

So... if we get a full page of posts that are just about other posts, can we call in Rail* to fill the next page with crudely captioned cat pictures? Like at the pizza shop where you buy 22 pages pies and you get the next one free?





Translation: you guys can start talking about something besides yourselves any time...

Edit: PS: http://icanhascheezburger.files.word...-polarbear.jpg

[tie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Uh..no. You apparently don't know what an "appeal to authority" is. An appeal to authority is where you defend a position based on WHO a person is. I don't see many people saying "because Fred Signer says". If someone presents an argument that Singer made, then something disparaging is said about him in refutation, then that is a 'poisoning the well" logical fallacy. It doesn't matter who someone is...what matters is their argument. When you argue against THE PERSON you are engaging in a logical fallacy and you have lost the argment.

Sure, you can try and both debate the argument AND engage in logical fallacies, but that hurts your position - it doesn't help it. A strong argument doesn't need irrational appeals.

I don't agree. This is why ebuddy posted Singer's resume a few posts up, because he also disagrees. I am not a climate scientist, and so yes I need to find sources whom I trust. This takes a certain judgement, which ebuddy clearly lacks.

And yes, this is why I repeatedly bring up Iraq even in threads on totally different subjects. The common theme is that you need to know what sources to trust. What are the warning signs that you are being tricked? One good sign ebuddy should learn is when the scientist you're quoting on global warming denies links between smoking and cancer.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by tie 

I don't agree. This is why ebuddy posted Singer's resume a few posts up, because he also disagrees. I am not a climate scientist, and so yes I need to find sources who I trust. This takes a certain judgement, which ebuddy clearly lacks.

Fine. You're admitting to regurgitating what others say, taking them at their word because YOU "trust" them. THAT IS NOT WHAT MAKES A DEBATE and simply offering that kind of rebuttal is meaningless. If you don't understand what you are debating, and can't argue based on facts you are reduced to the logical fallacies you defend, and have lost before you even start.

And yes, this is why I repeatedly bring up Iraq even in threads on totally different subjects. The common theme is that you need to know what sources to trust. What are the warning signs that you are being tricked? One good sign ebuddy should learn is when the scientist you're quoting on global warming denies links between smoking and cancer.

What I've figured out is that people who try and defend the use of logical fallacies in an argument probably shouldn't be lecturing others on the trustworthiness of sources. It's clear that even the basic concepts of a rational argument is lost on them, therefore they aren't going to be much good when it comes to more complex thought.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

You can claim innocence all you want, but you're lying. You quoted Fred Singer - in fact, you posted (and quoted from) a Singer article based on his book Unstoppable Global Warming, which he co-wrote with Dennis Avery.

I'm lying? Here we go again. So you'll recall...

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

I know it. I would be truly happy to see a long list as this book describes, of hundreds of peer-reviewed studies downplaying the threat of global warming (as I would to see evidence downplaying any threat; threats are bad). Again, I want to see the list, and I want it to be legit, but I doubt it is in this case.

Then tie pops in with his argument for AGW...

Originally Posted by tie

See, ebuddy, this is why the Iraq comparison is valid. Fools who can't judge sources use the same low standards in all their decisions.

You'll recall I addressed tie's best argument for AGW above by claiming (again) that I would not be putting any money down for the Singer/Avery book. Don't take my word for it, read the page you linked to. I no more endorsed this book or "quoted from it" than you endorsed and quoted Al Gore. I addressed Uncle's question of wanting to see the peer-review provided by the book. I gave a link and their "prelude". This was not "quoting" from the book, it was satisfying a request. I finished by stating that we're quick to defend a man who happens to agree (regardless of his character or credibility as a valid criteria of "source" for tie), but quick to character-assassinate another man who doesn't agree. I've been saying the same thing all along. This shows me more concern for political climate than global climate. Each page only affirms my point more. You're welcome to keep trying.

The entire discussion of D-O cycles was brought up by YOU, based on the claims in that article, which was written by Singer and Avery. Your memory is conveniently short when it comes to pleading innocent, I see.

You're still referring to the "copy-paste" of the book's prelude. You'll recall (or maybe can find if you have the time) that most of my personal statements centered around "cyclical climate change". YOU took issue with D-O cycles. I further clarified D-O cycles and began including Bond's works. Your first argument against D-O cycles was to mention what a contrarian hack Singer was.

We had comprehensive debate about the data/articles/research you supplied which dragged on and on for pages...and you now claim that no one would do so? That's just lame. greg

It wasn't a comprehensive debate. It was character-assassination out of the gate. It was complaints of browser trouble, antiquated papers, lack of time, and chest-pounding personal expertise. Tie popped in to show his lack of reading comprehension and parrot some Iraq talking points with personal insults showing how confident he is in his view on this issue as well. All signs that an argument was nowhere to be found. I concluded you were unreasonable back in September and while you've taken steps since then to sober your rhetoric and you're in fact heads above tie, you're tainting it with more of the same BS you guys started off with.

[ryaxnb]

Haven't seen the documentary. Al gore is a master of hypocrisy (coming from a democrat, this.) And he uses some weird methods and did I mention he is too much of an extremist? OTOH, he probably should have won the election. Doesn't mean I like him.
But I like him more than Bush, so I may be biased.

Side note: Man, our last two election candidates on the democratic and republican sides sucked! Gore, Kerry, Bush. Don't like any of them. n: But now, we have McCain, Obama, and Edwards, who I like, Hillary, who is annoying but better then Gore, Kerry or Bush, and a bunch of so-so ones on the republican side (I'm not a huge fan of Mitt Romney, but again, better than Bush.)

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Hah. I love how this debate has now sunk to the low point of global-warming skeptics plaintively claiming an inability to debate because of total character assassination, when the entire thread (along with its title) is a deliberate character assassination of Al Gore and his pro-global-warming stance.

Simply. Effin'. Priceless.



(That it's a character assassination with which I agree is quite irrelevant, I might point out.)

I no more endorsed this book or "quoted from it" than you endorsed and quoted Al Gore. I addressed Uncle's question of wanting to see the peer-review provided by the book. I gave a link and their "prelude". This was not "quoting" from the book, it was satisfying a request.

Uhhhh...this post is when you brought up the Hudson study, via the book, and partly quoted and partly paraphrased the book and the article written by Singer and Avery.
So, what you're saying makes no sense. YOU brought up the book by Fred Singer, and quoted some of the arguments from that book. That you later provided and quoted the specific article on/from that book, by the book's authors, because someone basically asked for more information, seems pretty irrelevant to YOU quoting Fred Singer's book in the first place. (I didn't quote this original post the first time because I couldn't get Safari to load page 17, by the way.)

It wasn't a comprehensive debate. It was character-assassination out of the gate. It was complaints of browser trouble, antiquated papers, lack of time, and chest-pounding personal expertise.

You forgot to mention it was also long, boring, intensive posts on D-O cycles and evidence of climate cyclicity during pre-Holocene and Holocene periods and the CO2-temp lag, as well as you posting a "skeptical book/article" from people who are paid to be skeptics by those on one side of the debate at hand. Just, you know, BTW.

Anyways, whatever, I'm not going to get into a he-said she-said about how you clearly brought up Fred Singer. The point was, Singer was brought up, his arguments were quoted, and his credentials were quoted in support of his ability to make those arguments. Both his arguments (on D-O cycles, on the accuracy and/or relevance of the number of papers quoted to disprove "scientific consensus", on his claims of a warmer MWP than today, on the linking of MWP and today's warming to an identifiable climate cycle, yadda yadda yadda) and his credentials as an "authority figure" were attacked, and I see no logical evidence that this argument strategy was an invalid one.

greg

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Hah. I love how this debate has now sunk to the low point of global-warming skeptics plaintively claiming an inability to debate because of total character assassination, when the entire thread (along with its title) is a deliberate character assassination of Al Gore and his pro-global-warming stance.


Simply. Effin'. Priceless.



(That it's a character assassination with which I agree is quite irrelevant, I might point out.)

It's not a character assassination when it is entirely relevant to the thread and the thread title. For example, it has not been suggested that Al Gore is a hypocrite because he touts the ills of AGW while claiming he sang, "Look for the union label" as a child failing to acknowledge that he was 27 when the song came out. It has been stated that Al Gore is a hypocrite because he jet-sets throughout the US and abroad on a friggin' private jet, burns three computer monitors under an office with lights on and window open with sunshine glaring in while touting the ills of human consumption and emissions. If I said he was a quack and therefore has zero credibility on global climate because of the above unrelated lie, that would be a character assassination.

Uhhhh...this post is when you brought up the Hudson study, via the book, and partly quoted and partly paraphrased the book and the article written by Singer and Avery.
So, what you're saying makes no sense. YOU brought up the book by Fred Singer, and quoted some of the arguments from that book. That you later provided and quoted the specific article on/from that book, by the book's authors, because someone basically asked for more information, seems pretty irrelevant to YOU quoting Fred Singer's book in the first place. (I didn't quote this original post the first time because I couldn't get Safari to load page 17, by the way.)

Context greg. Context. You'll recall I followed up by saying "If one is truly interested (i.e. give it a read and let me know what you think) they could verify the sources of this peer-reviewed collection of scientists that when you think of it, kind of makes the "consensus" argument a little hard to swallow IMO." Did you read the peer-reviewed collection greg or are you just rejecting information a priori because of statements on second-hand smoke. Should I be digging around for scientists on the GreenPeace dole that happen to believe blue-footed boobies have as many rights as humans? It just gets silly.

You forgot to mention it was also long, boring, intensive posts on D-O cycles and evidence of climate cyclicity during pre-Holocene and Holocene periods and the CO2-temp lag, as well as you posting a "skeptical book/article" from people who are paid to be skeptics by those on one side of the debate at hand. Just, you know, BTW.

Go back through the 23 pages of this thread. The overwhelming majority of it has little to do with actually debating data and more to do with character assassinations. It took far too long to get into the (in your words) "boring" details of this thread and it was littered with far too much of the nonsense to make it worthwhile.

Anyways, whatever, I'm not going to get into a he-said she-said about how you clearly brought up Fred Singer. The point was, Singer was brought up, his arguments were quoted, and his credentials were quoted in support of his ability to make those arguments.

No, no, and no. First of all It doesn't do any good to claim you're not going to get into a he-said, she-said about how I supposedly quoted Singer; then reiterate that I brought him up, quoted him, and cited his credentials to affirm an argument. I cited Singer/Avery's collection of peer-reviewed studies as a conversational piece, advised that anyone interested check it out for validity, mentioned I wasn't dropping a dime down on the book, and advised those who were to get back to me.

Both his arguments (on D-O cycles, on the accuracy and/or relevance of the number of papers quoted to disprove "scientific consensus", on his claims of a warmer MWP than today, on the linking of MWP and today's warming to an identifiable climate cycle, yadda yadda yadda) and his credentials as an "authority figure" were attacked, and I see no logical evidence that this argument strategy was an invalid one.

- you didn't read the book.
- you didn't read the links I provided.
- you spent most of your time railing on Singer and Avery and little time on the data within the piece.
- you failed to acknowledge any advancement on the identification of climate cycles and the celestial events that contribute to them, starting off with supposing they were exclusively pre-Holocene and ending up in the 80's.
- you continue failing to acknowledge that Singer's resume was quoted just on this page with follow up to establish that he has as much right to be an "authority figure" on global climate change as Al Gore, whom you and others have defended.

In this I guess it's good that you don't want to get into a he-said, she-said. You seem to be having difficulty discerning what he-said. The accusations lodged against my "intentions" in this thread are entirely contrived, patently apparent, and extremely tiring. BTW; I'm no more a global warming skeptic than you are a natural climate change skeptic.

[tie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Fine. You're admitting to regurgitating what others say, taking them at their word because YOU "trust" them. THAT IS NOT WHAT MAKES A DEBATE and simply offering that kind of rebuttal is meaningless. If you don't understand what you are debating, and can't argue based on facts you are reduced to the logical fallacies you defend, and have lost before you even start.

Are you a climate scientist? No. Nobody here is qualified to debate this fully. All the information being used here is coming from other sources, and if we followed your rules and didn't allow use of external sources then there'd be nothing left. So if we all followed your rules, there wouldn't be a thread at all. Not very interesting. You're seeing this as completely black-and-white, but it just isn't.

On the other hand, ebuddy is here arguing that smoking isn't linked with cancer. Yes, it is a logical fallacy to dismiss his arguments just because they are ridiculous. I should really spend hours digging up primary sources, or spend years conducting my own medical studies. You can feel free to do so.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I did not quote Dr. Fred Singer. I merely cited a compilation of abstracts collected by Singer, but let's take a look at this guy for a quick second;

- invented instrumentation for measuring stratospheric ozone.
- principal investigator on a satellite experiment retrieved by the space shuttle in 1990
- Research Professor at George Mason University and professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia.

His resume includes;
- Ph.D. in physics, Princeton University
- Chief Scientist, U.S. Department of Transportation
- Deputy Assistant Administrator for Policy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
- Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water Quality and Research, U.S. Department of the Interior
- founding Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami
- First Director of the National Weather Satellite Service
- Director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Maryland
- Published more than 400 technical papers in scientific, economic, and public policy journals.

He enjoys tenure not only through the University of Virginia, but his work spans through two other Universities as well with the following awards of achievement;

- Special Commendation from the White House for achievements in artificial earth satellites
- U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal Award for the development and management of the U.S. weather satellite program.
- The first Science Medal from the British Interplanetary Society.

Of course we discuss this in context of the realization that The IPCC itself is not necessarily "a group of scientists". Make no mistake about the political nature of this group. It is a panel set up by the UN with representatives from approximately 140 governments; a significant number simply authors and editors. Their job is to consider what we currently know about climate change based on working groups of scientists commissioned for very specific areas of research with subsequent grants to conduct their work.

While Dr. Fred Singer is outspoken and opinionated, he's reserved at least as much right to speak on these matters as Al Gore. Your assessment of "zero credibility at all" is a bit of a stretch IMO.

[Buckaroo]

Where do the wackos end?

Mankind 'shortening the universe's life'

Mankind 'shortening the universe's life' - Telegraph



We are now destroying the Universe!

It will never end. These nut jobs take a pinch of fact, mix in a ton of assumptions, guesses, wild ass guesses and opinions and come up with global warming. Next it's the Universe.

It's all a bunch of BS. These so called experts are NOT experts. They are guessing. They have attached a million assumptions to their claims.

[BadKosh]

You forgot to mention that "shorts' uses only scientists who's work is above reproach, and have never made any mistakes. Their work is to be regarded as gospel. All other material is completely wrong.

[BadKosh]

OK, so do viruses cause cancer or is it smoke?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

On the other hand, ebuddy is here arguing that smoking isn't linked with cancer.

Are you really this upset with me?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Look ebuddy, why won't you just admit that you think AIDS is caused by smoking?

greg

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Look ebuddy, why won't you just admit that you think AIDS is caused by smoking?

greg

I'm guessing he thinks it's an affliction by God, and that only gay people can get it.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I'm guessing he thinks it's an affliction by God, and that only gay people can get it.

Is that before or after he lightening bolts the homo's ass?

[BadKosh]

Hmmmmmm..... I guess if our politicians believe all this it MUST BE WRONG!!! They haven't been right in decades.


A U.S. Senate committee is scheduled for an historic vote on a global warming bill this week, perhaps as early as Wednesday. Environmental groups are planning a flurry of press conferences tomorrow (12/4/2007) to try to influence the vote.

Meanwhile, in Maryland, Gov. Martin O'Malley's advisory Commission on Climate Change is scheduled to meet tomorrow to discuss possible steps to reduce the state's greenhouse gas emmissions. The 22-member goup, headed by state Environmental Secretary Shari T. Wilson, is looking to recommend that the state adopt laws to cut greenhouse gases by 25 percent by 2020, and then move aggressively to slash the pollutants by 90 percent by 2050, according to a draft report. To achieve these goals, the state should tighten its energy efficiency standards, strengthen building codes, require more clean energy generation, among other steps.

"As a coastal state with extensive low-lying land on the Eastern Shore and around the Chesapeake Bay, Maryland is exceeded only by Louisiana, Florida and Delaware in the percentage of its land vulnerable to accelerated sea level rise," the draft report warns.

On the Federal level, the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Wednesday is expected to debate amendments to a bill proposed by Sens. Lieberman of Connecticut and Warner of Virginia that would create a "cap and trade" system designed to cut total U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions. These systems require industries to pay fees when they emit carbon dioxide or other greenhouses gases above a set limit, with the money going to reward cleaner businesses.

Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland is a co-sponsor of the bill. A group of Maryland environmental groups recently wrote a letter to Cardin (see below) urging him to strengthen the bill. They praise the proposal as a good first step, but they want to end the bill's free giveaway of pollution credits to power companies and amend the legislation to create a more aggressive target of an 80 percent cut by 2050.

"This is the first time ever a Senate commitee is voting on a globval warming bill, and that's historic," said Brad Heavner, director of Environment Maryland. "There is some reasonable expectation that this will get to the floor, but the big question is will it get stronger or weaker?....We think it needs to be stronger."

As this blog reported last month, Europe tried a pollution credit trading system to curb carbon dioxide emissions after it passed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, and power companies worked the system to make billions in profits. Electricity customers paid higher bills, thinking they were contributing to a cooler planet. But their money just went into the pockets of the electric companies, which didn't end up actually cutting down on their carbon dioxide emissions.

On the other side of the political spectrum from these environmental groups, most Republicans on the committee are unlikely to vote in favor of the bill's current requirements, according to the online journal Grist.

"Right now, there's little reason to expect that any Republican on the committee other than John Warner (R-Va.) himself will vote for it. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) spoke critically of it at the first subcommittee hearing last week, and Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) took to the podium of the National Press Club two days later to pillory the bill.

Voinovich said: 'I have significant reservations about the bill. I have recently heard the concerns of a variety of constituents, including both industry and labor representatives, who are especially concerned that the bill presents an overly aggressive first phase of emissions reductions that will hit well before we can reasonably expect commercially available technologies to deal with the problem.'

Without the support of more Republicans, it's unclear if the measure will make it out of the full Senate -- not to mention survive a veto by President Bush, if he chose to use that power.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

I hope that information came from one of those "reviewing scientists" that you're not allowed to name.

greg

[BadKosh]

Who cares what your evaluation is on any real scientists qualifications? You're no authority, so don't pretend to be.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Excellent! On a similar note, who cares what some blog says about an environmental bill? Is it an authority? Did you know quoting articles without constructive comment is not allowed in this forum (other than in this thread it seems)?

I hope the blog led you to make a decision on the global warming issue though. After all, it's better to quote some random blog than, say...facts.

*nods*

greg

[BadKosh]

FACTS are not the same as correct conclusions.

If it were a done deal, we wouldn't have scientists (real ones) still studying the problem.

The climate has been both warmer and cooler than now. Some of which happened more than 15 thousand years ago. YOU keep looking at mans influence as a way to drive guilt for your cause. You pick the articles and Scientists YOU like/admire/respect and post them here.

I happen to be listening to Astrophyicists and astronomers right now, to understand what they are saying.
There is a lot going on inside our local star, and most had not been known even 2-3 years ago. I'll get back to you when I have better handle on it. maybe you can use the time to look into that aspect too, or have you already made up your mind?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

I don't respect or admire scientists; I don't know any of these people, besides the extremely rare one.

On the other note, I haven't made up my mind because you haven't given me anything to make up my mind on. Give me links, or studies, or some source of information. We've already been over what good "I'm listening to some people" does anybody.

greg

[Helmling]

You know what, yes, Al Gore is a hypocrite. He jets around on a private plane and has a huge mansion. He should be flying coach and driving a Prius.

But him being a hypocrite doesn't make global warming go away. The arctic is melting. Louisiana is sinking. Millions of people across the world are going to be dislocated.

Keep denying it all you want, but it won't change the facts, and those facts lead clearly to one conclusion: We have reversed the Earth's natural precession-based cycle through greenhouse gas emissions and rampant destruction of the natural carbon sinks.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

You know what, yes, Al Gore is a hypocrite. He jets around on a private plane and has a huge mansion. He should be flying coach and driving a Prius.

But him being a hypocrite doesn't make global warming go away. The arctic is melting. Louisiana is sinking. Millions of people across the world are going to be dislocated.

Keep denying it all you want, but it won't change the facts, and those facts lead clearly to one conclusion: We have reversed the Earth's natural precession-based cycle through greenhouse gas emissions and rampant destruction of the natural carbon sinks.

No. Nothing you said is a FACT. Everything you said and all scientist have said are conclusions based on a million assumptions.

Now if you want to believe that some of the data is correct, then the REAL FACT is carbon dioxide does NOT cause global warming. Global warming CAUSES increased carbon dioxide readings in ice samples they drilled out old ice.

You are falling for all the lies. The ocean will NOT rise anytime soon. If it rises more than 2 inches, it'll take thousands of years. Damn, New York will be gone by then.

The true fact is, everything changes. The Northern Ice caps will melt and then they will freeze again. Back and forth, there is nothing that man can do to cause or change this. This is based on the tilt of the earth, the magnetic north pole and the suns output.

Many companies have jumped on the band wagon to sell carbon credits only to steal your money and do NOTHING in return.

Save your money, stop driving gas guzzlers and be energy efficient. Not because of global warming, but because we need to get off the Middle East oil habit. Our future and our kids futures are being affected by the Middle East.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

No. Nothing you said is a FACT. Everything you said and all scientist have said are conclusions based on a million assumptions.

Now if you want to believe that some of the data is correct, then the REAL FACT is carbon dioxide does NOT cause global warming. Global warming CAUSES increased carbon dioxide readings in ice samples they drilled out old ice.

You are falling for all the lies. The ocean will NOT rise anytime soon. If it rises more than 2 inches, it'll take thousands of years. Damn, New York will be gone by then.

The true fact is, everything changes. The Northern Ice caps will melt and then they will freeze again. Back and forth, there is nothing that man can do to cause or change this. This is based on the tilt of the earth, the magnetic north pole and the suns output.

Many companies have jumped on the band wagon to sell carbon credits only to steal your money and do NOTHING in return.

Save your money, stop driving gas guzzlers and be energy efficient. Not because of global warming, but because we need to get off the Middle East oil habit. Our future and our kids futures are being affected by the Middle East.

You really believe we can liberate 10% of the sequestered carbon from beneath the earth, wipe out huge swaths of the planet's forest cover, exterminate a large percentage of his oceanic autotrophs, and unsettle the planet's natural methane balance without seeing some impact?

I assure you, I am dealing in facts. Coastal farmers in India have already started shifting from rice farming to shrimp cultivation because sea water is invading their land. Island nations like Tvuala are already disappearing and their citizenry are already looking for new homes. U.S. territory is sinking too--in Florida, in Louisiana, and on the Chesapeake.

We've been doing this for thousands of years, but thanks to the modern rate of consumption, we won't have to wait to see the effects. What comes next is not going to take thousands of years.

Sorry, buddy, but you're working with last year's talking points. Even Bush and Co. can't deny global warming anymore. The question is no longer if something is happening, but what exactly will happen.

That, of course, we can't be sure of.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

But him being a hypocrite doesn't make global warming go away. The arctic is melting. Louisiana is sinking. Millions of people across the world are going to be dislocated.

Louisiana isn't sinking because of global warming.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by tie 

Louisiana isn't sinking because of global warming.

We lose a football field's worth every 30 minutes. That ain't just erosion from the loss of the barrier islands.

[besson3c]

Stay tuned for the next latest adventure in the global warming saga and find out who will be the victor in the ultimate showdown of truthiness vs. non-truthiness!

Dunh dunh dunhhhhh!!

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Stay tuned for the next latest adventure in the global warming saga and find out who will be the victor in the ultimate showdown of truthiness vs. non-truthiness!

Dunh dunh dunhhhhh!!

Stop stealing Colbert's schtick.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

YCoastal farmers in India have already started shifting from rice farming to shrimp cultivation because sea water is invading their land.

WTF?? They live in monsoon territory. They switched from rice to shrimp for economic reasons, not because they have too much water. Rice is grown in water patties as well as shrimp. A bushel of shrimp sells for a lot more than a bushel of rice.

I'm guessing a bushel of rice goes for what $2 in India, whereas a bushel of shrimp goes for $500 (maybe more) on the open market. Why is anyone growing rice? Shrimp is expensive.

Your still talking smack.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Island nations like Tvuala are already disappearing and their citizenry are already looking for new homes.
That, of course, we can't be sure of.

This is typical Bull **** from the LIARS.

Tuvalu is sinking because it sits on the crest of two tectonic plates. Islands of the Pacific are known to pop up and down with geological activity. The city of New Orleans is sinking in much the same way as the Mississippi fault line expands. The entire floor of the Pacific is in flux with constant volcanic and expansion processes. Tuvalu sits in a very active area on two active faults. The fate of the islands is a geological one, not due to global warming. Global warming is a fact but it is due to more mysterious forces. The current mindset prefers to tout fossil fuels and carbon emissions. That is the real smokescreen: that is the hoax. Get frank and real and tell the people of Tuvalu the truth. I suspect they already know. Canada knows; the USA knows; and Australia knows. And that is why they wont ratify the Kyoto Protocol. I expect that many more nations will soon opt out of Kyoto because it is based on a premise that is inconclusive.