Printable View
I don't particularly care about global warming or climate change, but am trying to educate myself on the subject. Someone like Randall Carlson makes a lot of sense to me and I'd like to find someone to counter him.
http://sacredgeometryinternational.c...climate-change
Damn. That is very impressive....except probably to the "Climate Change Consortium".Quote:
Originally Posted by ammtd34
For anyone that doesn't want to read the linked article, here is the moniest of the money paragraphs:
"I want to make it clear that I do believe humans are affecting the climate. However, that being said, it is evident that the extent of this effect is questionable. The climate of the Earth is an extraordinarily complex system. To claim, as many proponents of Anthropogenic Global Warming do, that the debate on climate change is over, is simply absurd and potentially dangerous as well. The reaction on the part of AGW proponents to legitimate scientific skepticism is quite disgraceful, in my opinion. To refer to anyone who questions AGW dogmas— such as the claim that there is a ‘consensus’ amongst all climate scientists, or the claim that the debate on climate change is over— as a climate change ‘denier’ in an effort to associate them with Holocaust deniers, or ‘industry stooges’ secretly funded by an insidious cabal of professional sowers of doubt, is nothing more than a cowardly tactic to avoid real debate. Many respected climate scientists have been slandered by AGW advocates simply because their research contradicts the claim that humans are the sole cause of climate change. It is vitally important that we learn to differentiate between the science of climate change and the politics of climate change. These are two very different animals. The proponents of AGW as a political agenda are advocating policies that would mandate virtually complete control of the global economy by bureaucratic elites in the name of controlling carbon emissions. However, the command and control systems they advocate will do nothing to prevent the climate from changing naturally, as it has done repeatedly throughout the history of the Earth, but will do everything to stifle freedom and the real progress that can eventually diminish our reliance on fossil fuels. Just as we should be skeptical of industry funded research, so we should be equally skeptical of government funded research, and at this writing the funding for the IPCC is many times greater than all verified industry funding put together, in spite of the claims of the AGW faction. A bit of investigative research will confirm the veracity of this assertion."
Wags, haven't had time to read the article yet, but thought I would follow up on the last sentence above.Quote:
Originally Posted by waggy
The Wall Street Journal pegs the annual budget of IPCC at around 7 million, with the US supplying less than 1/2 of it.
As far as industry funding in opposition, it far outstrips the spending on the IPCC (which you might have guessed). Sort of makes me question the veracity of the entire article. That funding by just a few notable groups/people is around 40 million/year. Probably much higher as not all industry contributors are noted.
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...ktanks-network
Maybe the confusion comes from the author's lack of understanding of the IPCC. While there is a lot of funded research on climate change by many scientists and organizations, the IPCC does no research itself, but produces reports based on peer reviewed, and non peer reviewed, research from multiple disciplines on the climate issue.
Maybe I should be skeptical about the claims the article is making.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paulxu
Is skepticism the new deflection? :whistle:
The Guardian is just a politicization story. It's exactly what the paragraph I posted spoke to. Which tells me that you're not really understanding (or don't care or don't agree with) the article. It also tells me that you LOVE that this issue is politicized. You think it's great that global governments are spending (and skimming) other peoples money. Nevermind that it might just be nothing but a giant fucking lie.
I mean 0.8 degrees, maybe. Go suck a tailpipe.
Yeah, maybe you should read the article.
And a link for the WSJ report please.
So besides being a Freemason, which I guess is impressive, who is this guy and what are his qualifications?
He's a renegade scholar. :pointandlaugh:
Interesting debate recently. It's nice to see instead of the science is settled nonsense.
Here's a good article from a former advocate of AGW who's become more of a skeptic and frankly espouses similar views to those I hold on the subject (admittedly, I've a been a bit of a bomb thrower on the skeptic side to counter the extreme views of those who label those question "deniers").
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog...ukewarmer.aspx
Wags, I was not and am not commenting on the politics or the veracity of either side of the issue.
I used the word skeptical in my last sentence because the author of your noted article said we should be skeptical because IPCC gets
and they get that for research.Quote:
and at this writing the funding for the IPCC is many times greater than all verified industry funding put together
He makes 2 very large errors that call into question his entire approach and conclusions.
1 - The IPCC is not a government funded research group. They do no research themselves. I laid out above what they do
2 - Their annual budget is around $7 million and is obviously far exceeded by the industry spending against their conclusions. Here's the WSJ link:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014...83681319834978
and I'm going to guess the WSJ is generally not sympathetic to the IPCC positions.
Your article called for skepticism. It invited investigation into funding sources. I did that, and find myself skeptical of it, if it gets 2 basic premises wrong.
It's really cold again in Cincinnati this winter. Personally, I want global warming to come to Cincinnati. I could do without these long winters.