global warming denial

[Theodore Kurita]

Oh, and to justify my point, here is a antimammography rant on the NCPA's website.

Yes, they say that mammographies don't save women's lives:


http://www.ncpa.org/iss/hea/pd102401e.html

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

I see that your link is to a rightwing thinktank known as the "NCPA" "National Center for Policy Analysis"

The NCPA is libertarian, NOT right-wing.

[ad hominems and conspiracy theory deleted]

 

[shanek]

Oh, and to justify my point, here is a antimammography rant on the NCPA's website.

That's not a rant; that's a report on a study published in Lancet. Besides, what does this have to do with the article Kodiak linked to? Or are you just fishing for ad hominems because you don't want to confront the data?

 

[Theodore Kurita]

And plase avoid using these sources, these are known rightwing bias organizations that been known to have ties to Oil Industry:

* Acton Institute
* American Enterprise Institute
* American Legislative Exchange Council
* The American Policy Center
* The Augustine Institute for Ethics
* Calvert Institute for Policy Research
* Cascade Policy Institute
* The Cato Institute
* Center for American Experiment
* Center for Equal Opportunity
* Center for Individual Rights
* The Center for Public Policy
* Center for Strategic and International Studies
* Center for the New West
* Center for the Study of Popular Culture
* Claremont Institute
* Competitive Enterprise Institute
* Economic Policy Institute
* Foundation for Economic Education
* Free Congress Research and Educational Foundation
* George C. Marshall Institute
* Heartland Institute
* The Heritage Foundation
* Hoover Institution
* The Independent Institute
* Institute for Contemporary Studies
* Institute for Policy Innovation
* John Locke Foundation, Inc.
* Lincoln Heritage Institute
* Ludwig von Mises Institute
* Mackinac Center for Public Policy
* National Bureau of Economic Research
* National Center For Policy Analysis
* Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs,
* Pacific Research Institute
* Policy.com
* Political Economy Research Center
* The Regulatory Policy Center
* The Smith Center for Private Enterprise Studies
* Texas Public Policy Foundation

 

[Tony]

Or are you just fishing for ad hominems because you don't want to confront the data?

Yep, what can you expect from someone with "At a Young Democratic Socialists (*cough*fascist*cough*) Club Meeting" under their name?

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita:
Oh, and to justify my point, here is a antimammography rant on the NCPA's website.

Yes, they say that mammographies don't save women's lives:

The article is entitled "Do Mammograms Save Lives?". It cites a recent study from Denmark questioning the methodology used in studies that concluded mammograms indeed save lives. There isn't a shred of evidence to suggest that the NCPA has any position on mammography whatsoever.

 

[shanek]

And plase avoid using these sources, these are known rightwing bias organizations that been known to have ties to Oil Industry:

Many of these are NOT right-wing organizations, but libertarian organizations. And I would like to see you present evidence of their "ties" to the oil industry, as well as support for your implication that this means we should somehow ignore the data they present.

(Geez...the Foundation for Economic Education is right-wing? What a laugh!!!)

 

[clk]

Yep, what can you expect from someone with "At a Young Democratic Socialists (*cough*fascist*cough*) Club Meeting" under their name?

plagiarism

 

[varwoche]

If you think that reducuing fuel consumption will benefit the war on terror, I think you'll need to provide evidence of the connection between oil and terrorists.

Seems pretty obvious, but if you insist: US has been reluctant to hold Saudi feet to the fire.

... still varwoche is incorrect. Burning fossil fuels is not the only risk, there are risks caused by nature as well.

Pardon me, I never said nor implied anything to the contrary.

varwoche

 

[Theodore Kurita]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

The NCPA is libertarian, NOT right-wing.

[ad hominems and conspiracy theory deleted]

No Shane, it is deffinentely a righwing organization:

http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cach...A+is+a+right+wing+organization&hl=en&ie=UTF-8


As for evidence of the effects that global has had and wil have, I cite these studies. All of which are from database known as EBSCOHOST or Academic Search Premier:

The intensification and shift of the annual North Atlantic Oscillation in a global warming scenario simulation.

The impact of global warming on the annual North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) is investigated with a global warming scenario simulation of the ECHAM4/OPYC3 coupled general circulation model. It is shown that the annual meridional pressure gradient over the North Atlantic is significantly strengthened, and the two centers of action of the NAO, the Icelandic low and the Azores high, are intensified and shifted northeastward by 10° to 20° in latitude and 30° to 40° in longitude in the global warming scenario. The shift of the centers of action leads to a failure in capturing the NAO change with the traditional definition of the NAO index. A modified index is introduced that allows for this shift, and exhibits a tendency toward the positive phase and an enhancement of its intensity. The intensification of Icelandic low is tied up with zonal mean state change, and the strengthened Azores high is related to the stationary wave change. The shift of the centers of action of the NAO is associated with the stationary wave change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=12336122&db=aph

The Impact of Cloud Feedbacks on Arctic Climate under Greenhouse Forcing.

The simulation of Arctic cloud cover and the sensitivity of Arctic climate to cloud changes are investigated using an atmosphere–mixed-layer ocean GCM (GENESIS2). The model is run with and without changes in three-dimensional cloud fraction under 2 × CO[sub 2] radiative forcing. This model was chosen in part because of its relatively successful representation of modern Arctic cloud cover, a trait attributable to the parameterized treatment of mixed-phase microphysics. Simulated modern Arctic cloud fraction is insensitive to model biases in surface boundary conditions (SSTs and sea ice distribution), but the modeled Arctic climate is sensitive to high-frequency cloud variability. When forced with increased CO[sub 2] the model generally simulates more (less) vertically integrated cloudiness in high (low) latitudes. In the simulation without cloud feedbacks, cloud fraction is fixed at its modern control value at all grid points and all levels while CO[sub 2] is doubled. Compared with this fixed-cloud experiment, the simulated cloud changes enhance greenhouse warming at all latitudes, accounting for one-third of the global warming signal. This positive feedback is most pronounced in the Arctic, where approximately 40% of the warming is due to cloud changes. The strong cloud feedback in the Arctic is caused not only by local processes but also by cloud changes in lower latitudes, where positive top-of-the-atmosphere cloud radiative forcing anomalies are larger. The extra radiative energy gained in lower latitudes is transported dynamically to the Arctic via moist static energy flux convergence. The results presented here demonstrate the importance of remote impacts from low and midlatitudes for Arctic climate change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=12201987&db=aph

Global Warming May Harm Timber Industry.

Focuses on a 2003 study on the potential impact of global warming on the timber production industry in North America, conducted by researchers from the Ohio State University in Columbus. Problem with the change in forest growth patterns; Possible rise in the area occupied by tree farms; Information on timber growth rates in tropical regions.

http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=11586855&db=aph

Global Meltdown Underway.

Highlights the report "Warming Trends in the Arctic from Clear Sky Satellite Observations," by Josefino Comiso published in the November 2003 issue of the "Journal of Climate". Increase in the rate of warming in the Arctic and sea-ice melting season; Consequences of increases in temperature and in melting season length on the number of beetle-killed spruce trees, the Columbia Glacier and other environmental consequences.

http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=12054986&db=aph

 

[RandFan]

And plase avoid using these sources, these are known rightwing bias organizations that been known to have ties to Oil Industry:

* Acton Institute
* American Enterprise Institute, etc.

Ties to Oil companies does not discredit an organization anymore than an organization is discredited by being associated with any other group.

This is just ad hominem. Can you dispute the data or the arguments they present?

 

[RandFan]

An...these are known rightwing bias organizations that been known to have ties to Oil Industry:

Sounds like 2 testable claims to me. Evidence please?

This is what you call argument? Select all possible sources and dismiss them in a single swoop without any evidence?

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

As for evidence of the effects that global has had and wil have, I cite these studies. All of which are from database known as EBSCOHOST or Academic Search Premier:

Could you sum up what you think these sources are proving?

Oh, EBSCOHOST has ties to environmental groups. Should it be excluded?

 

[Zero]

Ties to Oil companies does not discredit an organization anymore than an organization is discredited by being associated with any other group.

This is just ad hominem. Can you dispute the data or the arguments they present?

What if they, and groups like them, comprise the vast majority of the anti-global warming groups? Doesn't the conflict of interest point a reasonable person to doubt their claims, if not dismiss them out of hand?

Imagine of the majority of scientists claimed that condoms didn't work, and 90% of the dissenting scientists were employed by condom manufacturers. Wouldn't you be skeptical in that situation?

 

[Earthborn]

Seems pretty obvious, but if you insist: US has been reluctant to hold Saudi feet to the fire.

What does this mean and how is it evidence of a link between oil and terrorism?

 

[Sundog]

What if they, and groups like them, comprise the vast majority of the anti-global warming groups? Doesn't the conflict of interest point a reasonable person to doubt their claims, if not dismiss them out of hand?

Imagine of the majority of scientists claimed that condoms didn't work, and 90% of the dissenting scientists were employed by condom manufacturers. Wouldn't you be skeptical in that situation?

It's useless, zero. RandFan is one of the best and even he can't resist the urge to simply stonewall and never acknowledge a single point on the opposite side.

I didn't think I'd need another vacation quite so soon... I'm losing the urge to even TRY to communicate.

 

[RandFan]

What if they, and groups like them, comprise the vast majority of the anti-global warming groups?

Then it would be reasonable to question ther data. Not dismiss it out of hand. Can you establish this fact?

Doesn't the conflict of interest...

What conflict of interest? Tobacco companies hired scientist to see if there products were safe. The scientists concluded that the products (cigarettes) were not safe.

Did the scientists working for the tobacco companies have a conflict of interest?

Should there data be dismissed out of hand?

Imagine of the majority of scientists claimed that condoms didn't work, and 90% of the dissenting scientists were employed by condom manufacturers. Wouldn't you be skeptical in that situation?

Absolutely, I would want to see the data on both sides before I rejected it.

That is skepticism. Dismissing the data out of hand is not.

 

[RandFan]

It's useless, zero. RandFan is one of the best and even he can't resist the urge to simply stonewall and never acknowledge a single point on the opposite side.

I didn't think I'd need another vacation quite so soon... I'm losing the urge to even TRY to communicate.

Hold on Sundog,

This is entirely unfair. I am willing to acknowledge a point but you will have to give me a point to acknowledge.

I could level the same charge at you. I don't out of respect but I have not seen you acknowledge my arguments that I have backed up.

Why do you feel that you are by default right?

What points do you want me to acknowledge?

Why don't you go back to your numbered list and address the points I made?

Don't take this personal Sundog. Discussion and debate is healthy. If you are right then someone should be able to answer our questions.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Let's at least try to establish the things we agree on.

1) Human activity is returning more CO₂ to the atmosphere than would normally be present.
2) This is increasing the total percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
3) We don't know for certain what effects, if any, this will have on climate and ecology.

Do we agree so far?

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Let's at least try to establish the things we agree on.

Ok. so far, I'd say we might have a rough consesus on the following:


1. Anyone who is not a degreed climatologist cannot have an opinion on this matter.

2. Conservatives, by and large, have ties to the oil industry and their opinions and facts – to the extent that they try to violate the above rule regarding degrees – can be safely ignored.

3. Conservatives are right-wing.

4. Nazi’s were right wing.

5. Nazi’s engaged in Holocaust denial.

6. The denial of global warming and the human component in that process “has about the same intellectual honesty as holocaust denial.” (this has not been as widely accepted as the others, and may not belong on the list)

7. Conservatives not accepting the human component of global warming as proven is the equivalent of denying it is the equivalent of holocaust denial. (See comment to No. 6)

8. Anyone expressing doubt about the evidence showing the importance of the human/industrial contribution to global warming simply has an overwhelming, unreasoning, blind hatred of the dreaded Environmentalists and the Left in general and anything they agree with. They can safely be ignored. (See also Rule No. 2)

9. The scientific consensus is that the human/industrial component of global warming is significant. If not, then an OVERWHELMING number of scientists accept the human/industrial component of global warming. If not that, then a majority of scientists feel that way.

10. Any scientists who don’t feel that way “have ties to the right.”

11. Anyone with ties to the right can be safely ignored (See Rule Nos. 2, 8)


That seems to cover the major points.

N/A