Comments on: The Ego of Global Warming http://www.bloggernews.net/14244 High-quality English language analysis and editorial writing on the news. Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:38:04 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: prying1 http://www.bloggernews.net/14244#comment-1500 prying1 Mon, 12 Feb 2007 07:55:35 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/14244#comment-1500 Let the back-pedaling begin! - http://billscomments.blogspot.com/2007/02/like-i-said-back-pedaling-is-beginning.html - - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece - Let the back-pedaling begin!

- http://billscomments.blogspot.com/2007/02/like-i-said-back-pedaling-is-beginning.html -

- http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece -

]]> By: peterbroady http://www.bloggernews.net/14244#comment-1375 peterbroady Thu, 01 Feb 2007 21:57:50 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/14244#comment-1375 What offends me, if anything does, is not your use of humor but your complete lack of evidence and missing the point. It's simply not a matter of faith; if it were there would be no reason for people to study it. I would guess, since you simplisticly assume that the 'biases' of scientists prevent them from doing any research that has sorts of objective, non-ideological conclusions, you have had no inclination to look at the evidence, but just to cite petitions (not studies) that support your pre-determined conclusions. There is no reason why this would be a political issue, I mean one that liberals would like and conservatives and libertarians would oppose, or whatever. Global warming, if indeed the science supports it (and here you have to look at the science), is a universal human problem that will effect technologists as much as it will anyone. I have been conducting some personal research on the topic of global warming, and may be posting some results here. In the mean time, you may want to take a look at some the evidence that the global warming petition you cite can and has been signed by anyone, regardless of credentials (http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=2748308&date=19980501&query=jokers+petition) or relevant scientific expertise (http://www.sciam.com/page.cfm?section=sidebar&articleID=0004F43C-DC1A-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21). The wikipedia page is pretty good too (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition), revealing that of the signatories, supposedly: "The petitioners could submit responses only by physical mail, not electronic mail. But older signatures submitted via the web were not removed." "Signatories to the petition were requested to list an academic degree; 86% did list a degree; petitioners claimed that approximately two thirds held higher degrees, but never provided evidence confirming this claim." "Petitioners were also requested to list their academic discipline; the petition sponsors claimed that 13% were trained in physical or environmental sciences (physics, geophysics, climatology, meteorology, oceanography, or environmental science) while 25% were trained in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, or other life sciences, but never provided evidence to support this claim." "The Petition Project claimed that it avoided any funding or association with the energy industries, but many of the scientists who signed the petition are closely affiliated with organizations funded by Exxon and others to discredit legitimate climate science, such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Myron Ebell and the Cooler Heads Coalition's Patrick Michaels." "The term "scientists" is often used in describing signatories, but the petition did not require signatories to have a degree, or a degree in a scientific field, or to be working in the field in which the signatory had received a degree. The signatory was not asked to provide the name of his/her current or last employer or job. The distribution of petitions was relatively uncontrolled: those receiving the petition could check a line that said "send more petition cards for me to distribute." What offends me, if anything does, is not your use of humor but your complete lack of evidence and missing the point. It’s simply not a matter of faith; if it were there would be no reason for people to study it. I would guess, since you simplisticly assume that the ‘biases’ of scientists prevent them from doing any research that has sorts of objective, non-ideological conclusions, you have had no inclination to look at the evidence, but just to cite petitions (not studies) that support your pre-determined conclusions. There is no reason why this would be a political issue, I mean one that liberals would like and conservatives and libertarians would oppose, or whatever. Global warming, if indeed the science supports it (and here you have to look at the science), is a universal human problem that will effect technologists as much as it will anyone.

I have been conducting some personal research on the topic of global warming, and may be posting some results here. In the mean time, you may want to take a look at some the evidence that the global warming petition you cite can and has been signed by anyone, regardless of credentials (http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=2748308&date=19980501&query=jokers+petition) or relevant scientific expertise (http://www.sciam.com/page.cfm?section=sidebar&articleID=0004F43C-DC1A-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21). The wikipedia page is pretty good too (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition), revealing that of the signatories, supposedly:

“The petitioners could submit responses only by physical mail, not electronic mail. But older signatures submitted via the web were not removed.”

“Signatories to the petition were requested to list an academic degree; 86% did list a degree; petitioners claimed that approximately two thirds held higher degrees, but never provided evidence confirming this claim.”

“Petitioners were also requested to list their academic discipline; the petition sponsors claimed that 13% were trained in physical or environmental sciences (physics, geophysics, climatology, meteorology, oceanography, or environmental science) while 25% were trained in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, or other life sciences, but never provided evidence to support this claim.”

“The Petition Project claimed that it avoided any funding or association with the energy industries, but many of the scientists who signed the petition are closely affiliated with organizations funded by Exxon and others to discredit legitimate climate science, such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Myron Ebell and the Cooler Heads Coalition’s Patrick Michaels.”

“The term “scientists” is often used in describing signatories, but the petition did not require signatories to have a degree, or a degree in a scientific field, or to be working in the field in which the signatory had received a degree. The signatory was not asked to provide the name of his/her current or last employer or job. The distribution of petitions was relatively uncontrolled: those receiving the petition could check a line that said “send more petition cards for me to distribute.”

]]> By: prying1 http://www.bloggernews.net/14244#comment-1365 prying1 Thu, 01 Feb 2007 15:40:32 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/14244#comment-1365 Sorry Mr. Broady - The discussion of evidence can be found all over the internet. There is no need for me to reitterate it here. You and I have already made up our minds about this and are on opposite poles of the magnet. - I tried to interject a touch of humor into the discussion. Sorry if it offends or disgusts you. Besides ego and money a friend noted I should have added hype. Y2K is a good example of people making money selling books saying the sky is falling AND the sky is falling books sell more than those refuting them. Perhaps it is your opinion that there have been no cycles of climate changes out of the ordinary. Could data be manipulated in such a way that the 'results' are predetermined??? Are ALL scientists are so ethical that they would NEVER manipulate data to get funding for their projects? ~~~~~ It comes down to faith. You can side with the Mother Jones crowd. - http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2006/10/2712_global_warming_4.html - I run with the 17,000 scientists who "declare that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever." - http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p31.htm - & - http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm - ~~~~~ http://debatebothsides.com/showthread.php?p=736593 Sorry Mr. Broady - The discussion of evidence can be found all over the internet. There is no need for me to reitterate it here. You and I have already made up our minds about this and are on opposite poles of the magnet. - I tried to interject a touch of humor into the discussion. Sorry if it offends or disgusts you.

Besides ego and money a friend noted I should have added hype.

Y2K is a good example of people making money selling books saying the sky is falling AND the sky is falling books sell more than those refuting them.

Perhaps it is your opinion that there have been no cycles of climate changes out of the ordinary. Could data be manipulated in such a way that the ‘results’ are predetermined??? Are ALL scientists are so ethical that they would NEVER manipulate data to get funding for their projects?

~~~~~

It comes down to faith. You can side with the Mother Jones crowd.
- http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2006/10/2712_global_warming_4.html -

I run with the 17,000 scientists who “declare that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever.”
- http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p31.htm - & - http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm -

~~~~~

http://debatebothsides.com/showthread.php?p=736593

]]> By: peterbroady http://www.bloggernews.net/14244#comment-1316 peterbroady Tue, 30 Jan 2007 21:33:49 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/14244#comment-1316 This might be one of the most ridiculous posts I have read in a while. Where is the actual discussion of the evidence for global warming, something scientists are at least talking about? And where is the evidence for the dubious assumption that "the entire global warming issue is based on two things...Ego and money"? It would seem that the opposition to taking action to combat global warming could be said more plausibly to be based on "ego and money"...there is certainly more money there, with the energy companies, probably the wealthiest corporations on earth. You might as well talk about how hard it is for rich people to be treated fairly under the law...it totally misses the point and turns a blind eye to where real unfairness lies. It is strange to accuse scientists of being all about the money; if one is as intelligent and ambitious as many scientists are, then science is one of the worst places to go to make money...any one of them could go into investing or the energy business and make a lot more money. I mean, my dad is an electrician with no college education making six figures for a major oil company, more money than the vast majority of Ph.Ds in science or any other field will ever make. Finally, you write: "Through the entire existence of planet earth there has been climate changes. The pittance of time man has been on the scene we really have not seen any climate changes. (Have you seen an ice age recently?) Now a group of money hungry fanatics tell us that the mean temperature of planet earth must remain stable for all eternity or devastation will occur sometime in the future. (Chicken Little comes to mind)" Look at the data. That's all I can really say. Just look at the evidence, at the real cycles of climate change and that we are seeing right now. If you want, I'll send you plenty of links and resources that examine the evidence. I have a copy of Tim Flannery's The Weather Makers on my desk, I could send it to you if you want to learn about the evidence. Seriously. This might be one of the most ridiculous posts I have read in a while. Where is the actual discussion of the evidence for global warming, something scientists are at least talking about? And where is the evidence for the dubious assumption that “the entire global warming issue is based on two things…Ego and money”? It would seem that the opposition to taking action to combat global warming could be said more plausibly to be based on “ego and money”…there is certainly more money there, with the energy companies, probably the wealthiest corporations on earth. You might as well talk about how hard it is for rich people to be treated fairly under the law…it totally misses the point and turns a blind eye to where real unfairness lies.

It is strange to accuse scientists of being all about the money; if one is as intelligent and ambitious as many scientists are, then science is one of the worst places to go to make money…any one of them could go into investing or the energy business and make a lot more money. I mean, my dad is an electrician with no college education making six figures for a major oil company, more money than the vast majority of Ph.Ds in science or any other field will ever make.

Finally, you write:

“Through the entire existence of planet earth there has been climate changes. The pittance of time man has been on the scene we really have not seen any climate changes. (Have you seen an ice age recently?) Now a group of money hungry fanatics tell us that the mean temperature of planet earth must remain stable for all eternity or devastation will occur sometime in the future. (Chicken Little comes to mind)”

Look at the data. That’s all I can really say. Just look at the evidence, at the real cycles of climate change and that we are seeing right now. If you want, I’ll send you plenty of links and resources that examine the evidence. I have a copy of Tim Flannery’s The Weather Makers on my desk, I could send it to you if you want to learn about the evidence. Seriously.

]]>