Suppressed Climate Change Report

[30A Skunkape]

It's not so much the article I'm concerned with, but the point that the vast majority of scientists believe MMGW is real.

I also never said it was a consensus, but it is my personal opinion that the general consensus of climate scientists is that global warming is real and is man-made.

Here is a good article that backs up my opinion:
BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science

Just remember, as is the case with the glowing, gushing studies drug reps shove in my face regarding their latest and greatest products, one always needs to remember who funds studies. Unfortunately, here blurs the lines of science, business and politics, and anyone within any of the camps named above can both buttress and trumpet the other with biased authority.

 

[tofu]

Just remember, as is the case with the glowing, gushing studies drug reps shove in my face regarding their latest and greatest products, one always needs to remember who funds studies. Unfortunately, here blurs the lines of science, business and politics, and anyone within any of the camps named above can both buttress and trumpet the other with biased authority.

Always.

But generally, the facts are on the side of the scientists who believe in MMGW. I have seen solid rebuttals for all arguments against MMGW, many of which are blatant fallacies.

You also must take into consideration the fact that oil companies stand to make the most money from giving out false information on this topic. Companies with interests in alternative entry can make a lot of money, but big oil companies are already making billions, and want to keep it that way.

Things like this blog about connections between oil companies and a major global warming denying institute just seem too convenient to me.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/01/heartland-climate/

 

[30A Skunkape]

Always.

But generally, the facts are on the side of the scientists who believe in MMGW. I have seen solid rebuttals for all arguments against MMGW, many of which are blatant fallacies.

You also must take into consideration the fact that oil companies stand to make the most money from giving out false information on this topic. Companies with interests in alternative entry can make a lot of money, but big oil companies are already making billions, and want to keep it that way.

Things like this blog about connections between oil companies and a major global warming denying institute just seem too convenient to me.

Think Progress ? Global Warming Denier Group Funded By Big Oil Hosting Climate Change Denial Conference

I am not sure why a biased blog is any more credible than Fox News. I think the oil companies will profit from alternative energy, too. They aren't idiots and I am sure they understand the game is changing. Just as Anheuser/Busch found a way to thrive during prohibition, so too will the guys with their claws deep in the energy pot.

 

[Yarmap]

Always.

But generally, the facts are on the side of the scientists who believe in MMGW. I have seen solid rebuttals for all arguments against MMGW, many of which are blatant fallacies.

Which facts did the scientists believe when they predicted that the next "Ice Age" was comming? It could have been the oil company paid scientistback then too.

The key words here are "believe & consensus". I'm looking for the words "here's proof."

Maybe CBS can come up with a document.

 

[tofu]

I am not sure why a biased blog is any more credible than Fox News. I think the oil companies will profit from alternative energy, too. They aren't idiots and I am sure they understand the game is changing. Just as Anheuser/Busch found a way to thrive during prohibition, so too will the guys with their claws deep in the energy pot.

The biased blog has links to the Heartland Institute's very own site, where all the claims are backed up. It's not that you can't trust everything from a biased site, it's just that you need to recognize when it is actually biased (as Fox's article was). Unlike Fox News' site, this particular page on ThinkProgress backs everything up.

The second part of your post is where we will have to agree to disagree. Big oil companies have way too much invested in their current systems. If they can put off alternative energy for a little while by duping the public, I know they won't pass it up.

 

[tofu]

Which facts did the scientists believe when they predicted that the next "Ice Age" was comming? It could have been the oil company paid scientistback then too.

I'm not really sure, I wasn't alive back then.

The key words here are "believe & consensus". I'm looking for the words "here's proof."

That's not how science works though... science tests hypotheses and retests conclusions, but never proves anything.

Newsvine - The Nature of Science - Why Gravity is "Just a Theory"

Unfortunately we will only know with 100% certainty that global warming happened exactly a certain way in many, many years. By then it will be too late.

 

[30A Skunkape]

The biased blog has links to the Heartland Institute's very own site, where all the claims are backed up. It's not that you can't trust everything from a biased site, it's just that you need to recognize when it is actually biased (as Fox's article was). Unlike Fox News' site, this particular page on ThinkProgress backs everything up.

The second part of your post is where we will have to agree to disagree. Big oil companies have way too much invested in their current systems. If they can put off alternative energy for a little while by duping the public, I know they won't pass it up.

To be fair, I did the link. Out of "all the claims that are backed up", something like four or five links are non-functional. One says that some GOP presidential frontrunners have no problem with California imposing her own emissions standards on cars, from a state's rights standpoint. One cites a 2007 UN report saying that global warming will last forever (or some such), and the rest try to demonstrate a smoking gun between Exxon donating $800,000 to the Heartland Institute (question-how much $$$ did Exxon donate to Democrats in the same time period?), a group that apparently advocated non-hysteria in the global warming debate.

And? This really isn't too impressive. If anything, Al Gore did seemingly feel a need to temper his assault on reason to build support for his political position by deleting some of his hair raising powerpoint slides that implied global warming and natural disasters were associated.

I might point out this same blogger thinks CNN is suspect because ExxonMobil sponsored last year's party convention coverage.:roll:

 

[tofu]

To be fair, I did the link. Out of "all the claims that are backed up", something like four or five links are non-functional. One says that some GOP presidential frontrunners have no problem with California imposing her own emissions standards on cars, from a state's rights standpoint. One cites a 2007 UN report saying that global warming will last forever (or some such), and the rest try to demonstrate a smoking gun between Exxon donating $800,000 to the Heartland Institute (question-how much $$$ did Exxon donate to Democrats in the same time period?), a group that apparently advocated non-hysteria in the global warming debate.

The thing about California is not true, but the fact that the board of directors has former directors from oil and auto companies is an interesting conflict of interest.

I'm not saying this is major or proves or disproves anything, but I do think it is evidence against global warming deniers (and the Heartland Institute is one of the bigger ones).

Here is a link to the Heartland's site on James Johnston (the former Amoco exec):
Profile Results

And? This really isn't too impressive. If anything, Al Gore did seemingly feel a need to temper his assault on reason to build support for his political position by deleting some of his hair raising powerpoint slides that implied global warming and natural disasters were associated.

I don't see the relevance of this

I might point out this same blogger thinks CNN is suspect because ExxonMobil sponsored last year's party convention coverage.:roll:

That's stupid, but again, it has less to do with the blog than what it says. I could link you to the same sites the blog links you to... but linking to the blog is easier.

 

[Yarmap]

I'm not really sure, I wasn't alive back then.

Too bad you we're not alive in the 60's( some great years) when the scientist called the earth 'Too Hot", thats what was causing all the hurricans ( Camille,Donna)

Then in the 70's the scientist were predicting the next ice age in comming.

When none of this materializes you tend to be a little leary, espacially when politicians want to raise your taxes to stop the warming.

 

[30A Skunkape]

Jim Johnston sounds like a very qualified fellow!

Seriously, I think aluminum foil hats are in order for those who think that anyone who is a global warming skeptic has been programmed by a petroleum company. That is intellectually dishonest.

Nor do I think it is fair to label those who believe humans are turning up the thermostat as UN kooks who want to tax us to death.

All I want is: An honest analysis and debate regarding the topic by people who actually know what they are talking about, and this excludes almost all politicians, diplomats, actors and talk radio hosts. Following the debate, I would like to see a true consensus as to what is going on with the climate as well as a truly honest projection of what we can or cannot realistically do to make changes.

Is that too much to ask?