.
It isn't going away Cosmored.
Do people that sell fossil fuels have a financial stake in downplaying any evidence that the usage of their product might be harmful?
.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-16-2012 at 04:46 PM. Reason: nah.
Okay, let's pick just one.
AGCC proponents have been telling us for years that polar bear populations have been declining due to global climate change. , the polar bear floating on a small ice float has become the international symbol of AGCC.
Federal Polar Bear Research Critically Flawed, Forecasting Expert Asserts
Polar bear expert barred by global warmistsScienceDaily (May 8, 2008) — Research done by the U.S. Department of the Interior to determine if global warming threatens the polar bear population is so flawed that it cannot be used to justify listing the polar bear as an endangered species, according to a study being published later this year in Interfaces, a journal of the Ins ute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences.
And, I would bet those two are what underpins the claim Polar Bears are declining.Mitc Taylor, who has studied the animals for 30 years, was told his views 'are extremely unhelpful’ , reveals Christopher Booker.
Over the coming days a curiously revealing event will be taking place in Copenhagen. Top of the agenda at a meeting of the Polar Bear Specialist Group (set up under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature/Species Survival Commission) will be the need to produce a suitably scary report on how polar bears are being threatened with extinction by man-made global warming.
This is one of a steady drizzle of events planned to stoke up alarm in the run-up to the UN's major conference on climate change in Copenhagen next December. But one of the world's leading experts on polar bears has been told to stay away from this week's meeting, specifically because his views on global warming do not accord with those of the rest of the group.
Dr Mitc Taylor has been researching the status and management of polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years, as both an academic and a government employee. More than once since 2006 he has made headlines by insisting that polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, are much higher than they were 30 years ago. Of the 19 different bear populations, almost all are increasing or at optimum levels, only two have for local reasons modestly declined.
Why the Telegraph? Because, I can't find this story in the U. S. mainstream media. At least, it doesn't show up in a Google Search.
So, are Polar Bears increasing or decreasing? And, where they are decreasing, is it due to global warming or some local factor?
The story is similar for all the other "ad hominem and straw men" you claim I've forwarded. But, seriously, I'm not interested in flogging...that's why I didn't respond, initially.
I've already answered several times.
Can you give an example of a scientist who you think exemplifies a "healthy skepticism" of catastrophic AGW?
I'll wait for your answer.
It isn't a strawman. Your words, your theory, mouse.You are beating the out of your straw man. Big fonts and all.
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
The fact that Deniers claim some vast conspiracy on the part of tens of thousands of scientists seals the deal.
I read his post and didn't see anything about the the earth being flat, at the center of our universe, or only 6K years old.
People that sell fossil fuels aren't the only ones skeptical of AGCC.
And, with the advent of "green energy" divisions at most (if not all) of the major fossil fuel companies, they seem to be hedging their bets to make money either way.
The population of polar bears is not a factor in any climate model that I know of.
There wasn't.
Do you believe there is zero evidence for humans affecting the climate?
Link? Don't bother. I cannot expect you to be honest; I found it on my own.
The author, also not mentioned in Darrin's quote, is one William Briggs. Now what is interesting here is Mr. Briggs works for one JP Research Inc.
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=5501
Obviously I went from there to JPR's website and the 'about us' page
http://jpresearch.com/about-us-overview-expertise.htm
Here is what I found cogent:
If you need to spell it our for you its quite simple they are a consulting firm for large corporations who get paid for amongst other things making court testimony. they quite literally are corporate shills.JP Research, Inc. is a worldwide research consulting firm specializing in statistical, mathematical, engineering and risk analysis. We specialize in assessing whether a product poses an unreasonable risk to user. Our clients include Corporate R&D groups, trade organizations, and major automotive and consumer product manufacturers. The company was founded in 1995 by Jeya Padmanaban, President and Principal Consultant. Jeya is a world-renowned expert in the area of risk analysis, real-world performance and safety studies, particularly with regard to motor vehicle safety and consumer product safety.
Due in part to its state-of-the-art statistical research faculties, JP Research also has a considerable reputation in the litigation and research arena. JP Research’s team of scientists and engineers provide expert testimony in product litigation matters and provide statistical support for research projects.
Regardless the peer review process saw his skeptic articles published in the Journal of Climate:
http://vivo.cornell.edu/display/individual10671
That article just sounds like butthurt to me.
No, head.
My answer is NO.
Hey, by the way, my answer to that question is NO.
Am I being obtuse?
The longer this goes on, the more you look like Cosmored.
Do people that sell fossil fuels have a financial stake in downplaying any evidence that the usage of their product might be harmful?
Alrighty then, boutons.
Upon how many different theories and data sets and sources are the million research papers based?
Saying something over and over and over and over again, doesn't make it true.
If the actions they want populations to undertake, based on a belief it is a reasonable conclusion to think man might have a little affect on global climate, were as reasonable, you'd have more of an argument.
Bravo, RG. Getting a straight answer out of this dude takes some damn effort but you put it in. Nice.
You're on a roll with straight answers.
Repe ion and increased font size improves an argument.
-RG
Saying something over and over and over and over again, doesn't make it true.
Thats rich coming from Mr. Zero Evidence.
So, you don't have any real evidence or first hand accounts of your conspiracy theory.
If there really are a few key players somehow blocking the "real science" from being done, then you should be able to find a ready supply of climate scientists who feel their real science is being kept from the peer review process.
Get cracking. You could blow this whole thing wide open.
It got a straight answer out of you. You can ask anyone on this forum who has ever debated with you and that is not an easy task.
I have no doubts that the peer review process has its flaws. There have been articles published in any field that should not have been and there have surely been some authors met with resistance that was undue.
I also know that in today's age of information it is impossible to keep good scientific work down. Scientists are the ultimate truth seekers and while they aren't perfect I promise you that if any work that has merit is brought into the public sphere it will be impossible to just dismiss it. Scientists as a whole, want to understand the mechanisms at work.
The use of their product is harmful. It pollutes. Since the Nixon administration, vehicle and fuel technologies have advanced to the point where most toxic exhaust is barely measurable.
In any case, that doesn't mean it affects global climate.
I'm in favor of exploring ways to make the byproducts of petroleum-based energy less harmful to the environment and those of us who have to breath the air.
I just don't believe pollution and climate are the same thing. Two topics frequently conflated by the AGCC proponents. So much so, the EPA felt it necessary to list the harmless byproduct of breathing as a toxic gas.
Yonivore, are you discounting CO2 as a green house gas?
This is what its like talking ato Darrin:
Darrin: the sky is green.
Other: It certainly looks blue to me.
Darrin: *posts blog article without a link and unknown author*
Other: well that blog is nice and all but when i refract the light and measure the wavelength it keeps on coming up with 480-485nm. Do you have any evidence at all that its really green.
Darrin: *ignores the question* Wow, red is an ugly color I do not believe you like it.
Other: Hey red reminds of home, I just like it... hey wait do you have any evidence that the ski is green.
Darrin: No, how many times do I have to tell you. I still cannot believe you think red is a good color. *logs out*
*couple of days go by*
Darrin: the sky is green.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
