global warming denial

[shanek]

Government studies are studies that are designed to be unbiased.

That has got to be the most delusional thing I think I have heard anyone say!

However, if the study is completely privatized, and you have special interests groups running all around you trying to get you to fudge data, and completely obscure facts, would you do it?

You have your entities mixed-up. It's GOVERNMENT that is tied to the special-interest groups and is notorious at fudging data and obscuring facts.

And as for Steven Miller himself, he says that DDT does not have any harmful effects.

Citation?

 

[shanek]

Now, what are you saying, are you saying that government studies are biased.

What kind of bias would it have in that case?

Political bias. Bias in favor of politically-connected individuals and organizations. Just like in every single other thing the government does.

There is not special interest groups who are going to underhandedly fund the study.

How can you possibly be so delusional?

There are no corporations pushing to fudge data in these settings.

Hoo boy...

What makes you say otherwise?

Because that's the way it works in every single thing the government does!!!

 

[shanek]

Granted, the climate too complex to suggest just one gas is the reason for any change, but all other things being equal more CO2 will equal higher tempatures.

As someone who has studied economics, I'm familiar with the highlighted concept and how important and useful it can be. I'm also aware of the dangers of using it to draw fundamental conclusions.

Hmm, maybe this article is using old data. I'm under the impression that a "warming" of .5 to 1 degree is scientifically accepted.

The amount of the warming that has been accepted keeps decreasing as more and more information comes to light.

I've heard this before and I honestly I am unsure of what's going on with those figures, I would think the upper atmosphere would be warming also so it does point to an area where GW or our understanding of atmopheric temps need more work. The global rise of .5 to 1 degree based upon land and sea measurements still stands.

The prediction of global warming is that atmospheric temperatures will rise before surface temperatures. That just isn't what we find, either from the balloon measurements or the satellite measurements.

Here's a chart that makes the relationship between CO2 and global tempature look pretty clear.

That's the long-refuted "hockey-stick" graph, where the measuring method was changed just before the rise and the Medieval Warm Period mysteriously disappeared.

I agree limited GW might not be such a bad thing, and might actually have tangible benifits in some areas, certainly warming Siberia 2 degrees is no big deal. If that were the only effect is would be a stupid concern, but the tempature changes should be evaluated because they indicate the accuracy of GW which is making more dire predictions.

I don't think anyone's really disputing that. We're disputing the claim that these more dire predictions are concluded and confirmed.

 

[shanek]

I just feel that the current evidence points to humans having a significant influence too.

And I am not disputing this. So what's your beef?

 

[RandFan]

Is it my imagination or is there something wrong with the first premise (as in an unintended double negative)? If the first premise stands, it alone would seem to be justification for EPA banning of DDT.

Did I miss something?

If you look closely at the paragraph you will notice that it is in part quoted. The fault of the double negative is mine and is due to rewording of the paragraph.

I appologize. It was late.

In April 1972, after seven months of testimony, EPA Administrative Law Judge Edmund Sweeney stated that “DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man. ... The uses of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds, or other wildlife. ... The evidence in this proceeding supports the conclusion that there is a present need for the essential uses of DDT.”*

 

[Theodore Kurita]

That has got to be the most delusional thing I think I have heard anyone say!

sure

You have your entities mixed-up. It's GOVERNMENT that is tied to the special-interest groups and is notorious at fudging data and obscuring facts.

Sure.... The government has attempted and will attempt to avoid such things.

Don't you ever wonder why so much regulation is put into government studies from the CDC, FDA, and the EPA

Citation?

It is right on the frontpage of his website. www.junkscience.com

 

[Theodore Kurita]

Political bias. Bias in favor of politically-connected individuals and organizations. Just like in every single other thing the government does.

So what, you are now accusing the FDA, CDC, and EPA of being filled with Fraud???

Evidence please

How can you possibly be so delusional?

I am not dellusional. I just think that the government should have stiffer penalties, and should hav emore regulation over Big Business with Special interest groups.

Hoo boy...


Because that's the way it works in every single thing the government does!!!

Aren't you contradicting yourself again Shanek? You say that governments studies are tainted becuase of Special Interest Groups.

Wouldn't more taxes and more money going into the government and a BAN on Special Interest Group money eliminate any sort of bias?

 

[Theodore Kurita]

Here is an excellent critique of Milloy straight from the Skeptics Dictionary:

http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/junkscience.html

And PS... Ad Hominems in my posts are designed to get attention to my arguments.

Similar to Cain's style, only different.

 

[RandFan]

My thanks to dsm, curious and Brian the Snail.

Finally someone is bringing some meat to the table. All are good examples of "debating" the merits of global warming. As far as I can tell there is no fallacious argument.

Ok, I'll get off of my high horse now. Just because I think I'm the Master deBATER doesn't mean that I am.

Granted, the climate [is] too complex to suggest just one gas is the reason for any change, but all other things being equal more CO2 will equal higher tempatures.

(edit mine)

Assuming that the earth is getting warmer,

• How much warming has occurred due to increases in atmospheric trace-gas levels that are attributable to humans?
• How much warming will occur in the future?
• How fast will this warming take place?
• What other kinds of climatic change will be associated with future warming?
• When will the trend of warming reverse?

 

[clk]

Here is an excellent critique of Milloy straight from the Skeptics Dictionary:

http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/junkscience.html

So you start a thread on a another forum to try to get people to support your arguments, and when someone does support you, you steal their information and post it here!
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36225

And PS... Ad Hominems in my posts are designed to get attention to my arguments.

That's the funniest damn thing I've heard so far! Way to justify your poor debating style!

 

[Theodore Kurita]

Assuming that the earth is getting warmer,

• How much warming has occurred due to increases in atmospheric trace-gas levels that are attributable to humans?
• How much warming will occur in the future?
• How fast will this warming take place?
• What other kinds of climatic change will be associated with future warming?
• When will the trend of warming reverse?

Did you not pay any attention to the links I posted earlier:

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

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

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

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


All of these are VERY current models of Global Warming. In fact, one of these was done earlier on this month.

They are all PDF files, it is a huge amount of data, and it will take a while to go through.

All of the evidence, and data is in all of these documents.

 

[RandFan]

And PS... Ad Hominems in my posts are designed to get attention to my arguments.

What argument? There is no argument only gainsaying.

So, you use falacious argument to bring attention to a non-argument? That is rich.

Assuming you had an argument, fallacious is fallacious and those who engage in it while posting to a skeptics forum rightfully have no credibility. It is simply style over substance, and really, really bad style.

 

[RandFan]

They are all PDF files, it is a huge amount of data, and it will take a while to go through.

All of the evidence, and data is in all of these documents.

How long have you been posting to forums such as this? Has no one called you on this kind of fallacious reasoning before?

IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!

Please note how Brian the snail quoted from his links.

"Here, read this". is NOT an argument! Please visit the logic and fallacies pages I linked.

Are you smart enough to highlight any relevant data? I'm not going to do your job for you.

 

[varwoche]

I am well aware that the US supports the Saudi government, which has a monopoly on Saudi oil. But you have not provided any evidence that the Saudi government funds terrorist organizations.

I never said one way or the other that the Saudi government directly funds terrorists. It is safe to say, however, that:

1) Saudi government funds the spread of virulent fundamentalist teaching
2) Organizations that fund terrorists ("charities") operate freely within Saudi
3) Saudi is a totalitarian, fundamentalist regime
4) Most of the hijackers were Saudi

Yet we pussy foot them.

varwoche

 

[RandFan]

Here is an excellent critique of Milloy straight from the Skeptics Dictionary:

The site does not "debunk" Milloys arguments as far as I can tell. It seems that it is discrediting Milloy simply because some of the things that he calls "junk science" is not really science.

Theodore, could you actually read your link and tell us why you think it discredits Milloy?

Again, "read this link" is not an argument.

 

[RandFan]

By the way, I have never "denied" global warming. Please note my original post in this thread.

RandFan
If the evidence does indeed show that there is a significant risk to global warming caused by burning fossil fuels then you are right.

My understanding is that there is no such consensus. Just a fear that fossil fuel is suspected by many as being a significant factor.

Can you post data that supports the notion that burning fossil fuels has been determined to be a significant cause?

Also what if there is contradictory scientific data? Would you consider this data or dismiss it out of hand?

I have only been asking for 4 pages if anyone would post the relevant data.

I only claim that there is not a consensus that,

1.) There is global warming,
2.) That humans significantly contribute to global warming,
3.) That if there is global warming the effects will have an overall negative impact to humans.

I'm prepared to say that there is a greater consensus for #1 than #2 and #3.

 

[clk]

How long have you been posting to forums such as this? Has no one called you on this kind of fallacious reasoning before?

IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!

I'm afraid that TK is a bit of a troll. When he's not plagiarizing, he's either trying to start a flame war by attempting to piss off conservatives or by using his "here's a link, why don't you go try to debunk it" argument. It's quite funny, really. That's not even mentioning his 'CyberShaman' arguments, or his numerous attempts to impersonate a: hacker, medical student, astronomer, expert chess player, etc. I guess when can add "debater" to that list, LOL!

 

[RandFan]

All of the evidence, and data is in all of these documents.

Oh yeah, prove it.

Assuming that the earth is getting warmer,

• How much warming has occurred due to increases in atmospheric trace-gas levels that are attributable to humans?
• How much warming will occur in the future?
• How fast will this warming take place?
• What other kinds of climatic change will be associated with future warming?
• When will the trend of warming reverse?

You have yet to answer my questions. A document dump does not constitute an answer.

 

[RandFan]

I'm afraid that TK is a bit of a troll. When he's not plagiarizing, he's either trying to start a flame war by attempting to piss off conservatives or by using his "here's a link, why don't you go try to debunk it" argument. It's quite funny, really.

You are right, it is funny. But there simply is no excuse for this kind of behavior. For the record, I gave Jedi Knight hell for his inability to use logic. I don't care about a persona's ideology. I only care that individuals think and use logic to debate.

I may be wrong about the degree to which there is or isn't a consensus as to global warming and the impact or non-impact of humans as it relates to global warming but I think it only fair to expect reasoned debate.

 

[shanek]

Sure.... The government has attempted and will attempt to avoid such things.

Evidence?

Don't you ever wonder why so much regulation is put into government studies from the CDC, FDA, and the EPA

Yes, I do. You, apparently, don't.

It is right on the frontpage of his website. www.junkscience.com

No, it isn't. You wouldn't be lying, would you?

Here's what his site actually says:

"The uses of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect..." (emphasis mine) That is NOT the same thing as saying that "DDT does not have any harmful effects," which is what you claimed he said. He said that DDT can be used safely, and when it does it can result in lives being saved. If you disagree with this, then say why. But don't go making a strawman version of his claim just so you can attack him without cause.