Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2014 12:56:26 GMT -5
So when you said that it's impossible to get anti-GW research published at all, what you were actually trying to say was that it's impossible to get published by the IPCC specifically?
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Apr 22, 2014 13:00:00 GMT -5
Haha! No, I don't try to say things. My command of English is quite adequate. I say what I mean and I mean what I say. If you didn't understand what I said, get a friend who has a better grasp of English than you to explain it to you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2014 20:47:24 GMT -5
Ah, too bad. I was hoping that you'd be able to give a straight answer on a subject at least once.
But it looks like you're back to your usual MO.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Apr 23, 2014 20:51:17 GMT -5
I've been giving you straight answers since the start of this thread. Apparently you don't know what a straight answer is. Or you're pretending not to know because in reality all you're doing is trolling.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2014 13:18:44 GMT -5
Right, so you agree that when you originally said that anti-GW studies cannot get published, you were in fact talking out of your ass?
That your original argument that there is a science conspiracy that suppresses anti-GW studies is, in fact, a load of horseshit?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2014 13:19:59 GMT -5
Or are you going to dodge again pretending that wasn't what you said, even though I've quoted your own fucking words at you several times?
Or are you going to insult me once more, because you've ran out of ways to evade the argument?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2014 13:23:03 GMT -5
So let's hear it again, Zak Martin, how there is a conspiracy preventing scientists from getting funding for their studies, and getting their results published, even though there are loads upon loads of corporate thinktanks paying hefty sums for anti-GW research: Research into "global warming" is unique in that funding is only forthcoming to researchers (and institutions) who produce evidence supportive of the theory. Bear in mind also that, until MMGW was mooted, most researchers in the fields of environmentalism, ecology, earth sciences etc., found it very difficult to get grants. Environmentalism was one of the most underfunded areas of research. Now these researchers have buckets of cash thrown at them - as long as they continue to come up with the "right" answers.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Apr 25, 2014 13:47:15 GMT -5
You're a bit slow on the uptake, aren't you? The IPCC is a government-sponsored agency. Research grants are awarded by governments. There are not "loads upon loads of corporate thinktanks paying hefty sums for anti-GW research". That's just something you made up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2014 10:55:23 GMT -5
Zak, have you ever worked in an academic field? Research grants can potentially be awarded by hundreds (if not thousands) of different organizations and entities, ranging from state governments in the strict sense, to international organizations, to independent research institutions, to private foundations, to private corporations. And many research projects aren't even funded by a single organization to begin with.
Your claim that the only way for climate research to get any money at all is from the IPCC, and that any such grant is contingent on the results of their research, is entirely fictional.
Meanwhile, the Cato Institute factually exists, is very well supported by pro-corporate interests, and continues to fund anti-GW research projects.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Apr 29, 2014 11:58:56 GMT -5
I never claimed that the IPCC gives grants. I know it oversees a scholarship programme, but I'm not aware that it gives grants. The IPCC is funded by government grants itself.
As for the Cato Institute, you brought CATO up in an attempt to show that independent researchers also accept MMGW. Now that you've discovered that they reject MMGW, you're claiming (and it's a bogus claim) that they're supported by "pro corporate interests".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2014 15:12:04 GMT -5
As for the Cato Institute, you brought CATO up in an attempt to show that independent researchers also accept MMGW. Now that you've discovered that they reject MMGW, you're claiming (and it's a bogus claim) that they're supported by "pro corporate interests". I brought up the Cato Institute because you were claiming that "funding is only forthcoming to researchers (and institutions) who produce evidence supportive of the theory". And they are in fact not only supported by pro-corporate interests such as the Koch brothers, their own website says that they are dedicated to the principles of "limited government and free markets". www.cato.org/aboutBut this is nothing but a red herring. I note that you still haven't commented on your earlier ridiculous claim that there is no funding for anti-GW research.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Apr 30, 2014 19:28:30 GMT -5
I'm not aware of any. Are you?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2014 12:47:59 GMT -5
I'm not aware of any. Are you? Some Cato scholars (academics who, for the most part, have no qualifications in climate science) accepted the global warming thesis some years ago. Others, however, did not. The majority of Cato scholars do not now accept MMGW or "climate change". In fact the Institute has been attacked for its skeptical stance on this issue. In response to the Worldwatch Institute Report in May 2003, in which the WI claimed a link between global warming and extreme weather, the Cato Institute made this response: More recently, the Cato Institute has been even more scathing of global warming alarmist claims. In 2009, the Cato Institute took out a full page newspaper ad in response to Barack Obama's claim that: "Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear." The Cato Institute made the following statement: The majority of Cato Institute scholars reject the MMGW hypothesis.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on May 1, 2014 14:00:49 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but your point - if you have a point - eludes me. What exactly are you trying to say?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2014 4:14:52 GMT -5
I answered your question.
Is there anything in particular that you don't understand?
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on May 2, 2014 4:19:59 GMT -5
I asked you if you were aware of funding for anti-GW research. You posted a quotation from the Cato Institute in which they reject "climate change". I don't see any connection between my question and your response. The Cato Institute hasn't carried out research into climate change, if that's what you think.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2014 4:46:45 GMT -5
Hold on, if, as you claim, there does not exist any research that rejects GW, then how on earth would you be able to cite evidence that GW is a hoax?
|
|
|
Post by apple on May 2, 2014 11:06:53 GMT -5
Billionaire oilman David Koch used to joke that Koch Industries was "the biggest company you've never heard of." Now the shroud of secrecy has thankfully been lifted, revealing the $67 million that he and his brother Charles have quietly funneled to climate-denial front groups that are working to delay policies and regulations aimed at stopping global warming, most of which are part of the State Policy Network.
Today, the Kochs are being watched as a prime example of the corporate takeover of government. Their funding and co-opting of the Tea Party movement is now well documented.
Charles G. Koch and David H. Koch have a vested interest in delaying climate action: they've made billions from their ownership and control of Koch Industries, an oil corporation that is the second largest privately-held company in America (which also happens to have an especially poor environmental record). It's timely that more people are now aware of Charles and David Koch and just what they're up to. A growing awareness of these oil billionaires' destructive agenda has led to increased scrutiny and resistance from people and organizations all over the United States.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 2, 2014 14:28:24 GMT -5
Billionaire oilman David Koch used to joke that Koch Industries was "the biggest company you've never heard of." Now the shroud of secrecy has thankfully been lifted, revealing the $67 million that he and his brother Charles have quietly funneled to climate-denial front groups that are working to delay policies and regulations aimed at stopping global warming, most of which are part of the State Policy Network. Today, the Kochs are being watched as a prime example of the corporate takeover of government. Their funding and co-opting of the Tea Party movement is now well documented. Charles G. Koch and David H. Koch have a vested interest in delaying climate action: they've made billions from their ownership and control of Koch Industries, an oil corporation that is the second largest privately-held company in America (which also happens to have an especially poor environmental record). It's timely that more people are now aware of Charles and David Koch and just what they're up to. A growing awareness of these oil billionaires' destructive agenda has led to increased scrutiny and resistance from people and organizations all over the United States. Yes, the Kochs have a vested interest in delaying action on climate change. But the fact that they are now the poster boys for this has more to do with political tactics than anything else. There are plenty of other groups and rich people doing the same thing. In politics, it is usually best to pick one or two opponents who can be easily identified and attacked. If the Kochs didn't exist, it would have little effect on the anti-regulation policy group. More important, we should also be more careful of so-called "friends" of the environment. Gasahol is the perfect example. It was touted as a way to reduce CO2 emissions and the industry given all sorts of tax breaks and subsidies. The first thing that happened is that food production dropped because farmers were raising crops for alcohol production instead of food. There were food riots in several parts of the world as a result. Eventually it was shown that gasahol production actually increased the amount of CO2 production! However, the subsidies for gasahol producers are still in effect. So we have the government paying for the increase of CO2 production while it is also trying to reduce it. Go figure. Bob
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on May 2, 2014 14:48:31 GMT -5
Surely you're kidding? GW is a theory based almost entirely on computer modelling. Real world measurements refute it. The global temperature hasn't risen. Global ice levels are normal (actually slightly higher than average). Sea level is normal. Weather and climate patterns are normal. There is no evidence WHATSOEVER in the real world to support GW theory.
The IPCC made its first predictions 20 years ago (based on the MMGW model). None of their predictions have materialized.
As for the "science" itself, it is clearly nonsensical to anyone with even a rudimentary grasp of physics or statistics. GW science doesn't add up. The alleged effect is less than that expected in terms of normal variation. I have explained all this in previous posts. I'm not going to explain it all again. In addition to all that, it is quite clear to anyone familiar with the genesis of MMGW (Margaret Thatcher set up the IPCC in an effort to justify closing Britain's coal mines and redeem her "legacy") that the motives and thinking behind it are political/financial, not scientific.
I really don't know what you're trying to prove/disprove here. If you believe in MMGW you're entitled to your opinion. I think it's baloney, and I'm equally entitled to my opinion. You're not going to win the argument, because the facts are on my side.
GW is a faith-based belief system. You're either a member of the GW church, or you're a heretic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2014 19:01:03 GMT -5
I really don't know what you're trying to prove/disprove here. If you believe in MMGW you're entitled to your opinion. I think it's baloney, and I'm equally entitled to my opinion. You're not going to win the argument, because the facts are on my side. Facts that, according to your own argument, do not exist, because of a global conspiracy by the IPCC and "global warmists" that supposedly prevents any academic from researching the issue.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2014 19:05:47 GMT -5
In addition to all that, it is quite clear to anyone familiar with the genesis of MMGW (Margaret Thatcher set up the IPCC in an effort to justify closing Britain's coal mines and redeem her "legacy") that the motives and thinking behind it are political/financial, not scientific. Says the guy who is part of an astroturf movement founded by pro-corporate ideologists with the goal to protect industries from environmental regulations. But I agree that it is really important that you paint the scientific community as corporate stooges. Projecting your own faults on your supposed enemy is a tried and true tactic in politics, after all, and you can't win the argument unless you drag the opposite side down to your level.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on May 2, 2014 21:22:35 GMT -5
There's no conspiracy. I never said there was a conspiracy. There is, however, a convergence of interests involving a number of different groups. Governments are pro MMGW because it allows them to tax CO2. The nuclear power industry is pro MMGW for obvious reasons. Environmentalists are pro MMGW because it increases environmental awareness and makes their work more relevant. Marxists and anti-capitalists (including groups like Occupy etc.) are pro MMGW because it hinders industrialization and has the potential to undermine the corporate sector (ie, capitalism). Animal rights activists are pro MMGW because they equate the meat trade with industrialization. Wealthy investors are pro MMGW because it offers huge money-making opportunities for those who are rich enough to buy into the carbon stock market. Researchers with qualifications in "earth sciences" are pro MMGW because for the first time in history they are able to obtain government grants. And scientific institutions are pro MMGW because they are receiving generous government funding. Even organizations like NASA were in danger of going out of business until they became involved in environmentalism. And - very importantly - industrialists and politicians in the West are pro MMGW because it allows them to impede the technological development of manufacturing industries in India, Africa and other Third World countries, by imposing limits on the amount of CO2 they are allowed to produce.
It is because MMGW is favourable to so many different agendas that it has become such a powerful lobby. It has even united groups that are otherwise ideologically and politically opposed to each other. For example, the people who took to the streets in the 1980s in support of the coal miners (mainly left-wing liberals and Labour supporters), are the same people who are now in favour of nuclear energy. Marxists and Wall Street investment houses are supportive of MMGW legislation (for completely different, and in fact opposite, reasons).
You don't need to have a formal conspiracy in order for different groups to support and protect each other. All that's necessary is for them to have interests in common. Sorry, but I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. I'm not part of any movement. Well, good! Actually I do believe that the scientific community is now largely comprised of corporate stooges. Independent, objective science - scientific research not attached to either product development or some government agenda - is largely a thing of the past.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2014 0:47:00 GMT -5
Sorry, but I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. I'm not part of any movement. Yea, I am sure that financial support by right-wing ideologists and corporate interests for anti-GW rhetoricians and anti-GW voices in the scientific community (not among actual climate scientists, mind you, but in other academic fields) is complete and utter news for you. For someone so keen on "discovering" "converging interests" allegedly supporting global warming research, you are surprisingly blind to the ongoing convergence of interests among global warming deniers. (Specifically, free market ideologists, the US Christian Right, corporate interests, and the anti-science fringe and its related gaggle of conspiracy wingnuts, truthers, believers, anti-vaxxers and other "skeptics").
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on May 3, 2014 1:01:09 GMT -5
My financial support from corporate interests?? Surely you jest.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2014 8:52:50 GMT -5
My financial support from corporate interests?? Surely you jest. Where did I say that you are receiving "financial support from corporate interests"?
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on May 3, 2014 16:57:46 GMT -5
Oh, you're talking about other people. Well, I've heard that claim, of course, but I've never seen any evidence to support it. But what I do know for a fact is that the proponents of MMGW were (and are) paid huge sums of money for their contribution to environmental alarmism. Presumably, by your logic, we can disregard their claims on that account?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2014 11:49:55 GMT -5
Oh, you're talking about other people. Well, I've heard that claim, of course, but I've never seen any evidence to support it. You haven't seen any evidence that e.g. the Cato Institute (a known supporter of anti-GW studies) is funded by the Koch brothers? Or that anti-GW scientists (not climatologists mind you, just guys from other fields talking about science they aren't familiar with) are getting paid handsomely for talking at seminars and anti-GW conferences?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2014 11:51:21 GMT -5
But what I do know for a fact is that the proponents of MMGW were (and are) paid huge sums of money for their contribution to environmental alarmism. Then it shouldn't be difficult at all to show a credible source for that claim. Right?
|
|