the merely urgent interfere with the truly important

by Andre
Tags: important, interfere, urgent
Chronos is online now
Nov13-04, 08:58 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Chronos's Avatar
P: 9,182
IPCC has a rather checkered history. The media has been much quicker to jump on that bandwagon than the scientific community. An example

Another link to consider
Locrian is offline
Nov15-04, 01:15 PM
P: 1,695
I particularly like that second link, thank you for them Chronos.
Andre is offline
Nov15-04, 03:43 PM
PF Gold
Andre's Avatar
P: 5,450
I fully agree, but guess how the global warming adepts react to that site.

See the home page

Now, guess what kind of people the idswoods are:

Foes of global warming... (doesn't the titel sound pathetic)

The Idsos, who have been linked to Western coal interests, do not reveal financial sources. But IRS records filed by ExxonMobil Foundation show that it provided a grant of $15,000 to the center in 2000.

Even as global warming intensifies, the evidence is being denied with a ferocious disinformation campaign. This campaign is waged on many fronts: in the media, where public opinion is formed; in the halls of Congress, where laws are made; and in international climate negotiations. In their most important accomplishment, global warming critics have successfully created the general perception that scientists are sharply divided over whether it is taking place at all.

Key to this success has been the effective use of a tiny band of scientists -- principally Drs. Patrick Michaels, Sherwood Idso, Robert Balling, and S. Fred Singer -- who have proven extraordinarily adept at draining the issue of all sense of crisis. Deep-pocketed industry public relations specialists have promoted their opinions through every channel of communication they can reach. They have demanded access to the press for these scientists' views, as a right of journalistic fairness.
....etc, etc,

ExxonMobil states candidly that it "provides support to selected organizations that assess public policy alternatives on issues with direct bearing on the company's business operations and interests....
For example, the company supports the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, staffed by Sherwood Idso, a longtime coal-sponsored skeptic, and two relatives, Craig Idso and Keith Idso.

Its science advisory panel consisted of Dr. Robert Balling, Dr. Sherwood Idso and Dr. Patrick Michaels, three leading "climate skeptics" who, by their own account, have received close to a million dollars of coal- and oil-industry funding (including a publishing grant from the government of Kuwait) for their efforts to refute the scientific consensus on global warming.
Any idea why I get angry and cynical in the discussion about global warming. There is no discussion. It's the good guys against the bad guys and it has nothing to do with science. If you conclude for yourself that antropogenic global warming is failed science, falsified over and over again, at the best, you have just become a bad guy, a greedy pocket filler, comtempting the environmental issues.
pebrew is offline
Nov20-04, 02:15 AM
P: 31
Well, Andre, money plays a big part in US politics. So when people see scientists funded by big oil/coal coming out with results supporting industry and disagreeing with most other science they react cynically. No matter how big the alleged 'global warming lobby' is, i can guarentee you the fossil fuel lobby is bigger. a lot bigger.
Conservative politicians (mostly republicans) in the US have been for many decades generally anti-regulatory and support industry. Since the early 1980s they've been working with the energy industry to help disprove AGW theory. Now essentially all conservative policy organizations argue against AGW theory. Not because they are good scientists and think it is wrong on scientific bases, but because they are political and that's the political team they're on, anti-AGW. This is why i, for one, am distrustful of articles, research, etc put out by organizations like and . These are politically concerned groups. they have the agenda that AGW theory is wrong and that they need to convince people of that. They DO NOT have the agenda that they want to support the best science regardless of it's results. I don't mean to turn this into a political discussion, but this is the reality of why people are so mistrustful and cynical about those websites and energy-industry supported journals and research. the industry has profitability in mind, not good science, so why should we expect them to support good science that may hurt that a lot?

On one hand we've got conservative and energy industry supported research and on the other hand we've got the traditional scientific community and many journals looking for good science to publish. Now, don't you think the energy industry and the people it helps elect have a greater interest in oil and coal profits than the scientific community has in lying, en masse, to the public about one of the most important scientific theories in modern history?

There are certainly good reasons to question AGW theory. And there is probably good science contained in journels funded by industry money. But when people know the industry simply has an agenda to convince us not to regulate them due to AGW theory, they are rightfully distrustful. Unfortunately this has caused people (probably including scientists) to be less accepting of anti-AGW research in general. If the energy industry would stop propping up whatever anti-AGW research it can find, the good anti-AGW research would stand out better and people would be less reactive against it since it wasn't funded by people with profit in mind.

You say,
There is no discussion.
, Andre. But you have to allow for discussion. You're always polarizing the debate in the threads so that it becomes an all-or-nothing AGW debate. I know you aren't in complete disagreement with the pillars of AGW theory, but that doesn't usually show in your comments. You seem to feel compelled to argue against even the slightest pro-AGW argument, ignoring any scientific merit you may see in the pro-AGW argument. If we could hold less polarized debates that concentrated on the scientific merit of the specific issue, rather than turn every thread into "this is why AGW is wrong, point A, B, and C", we'd learn a lot more, and more importantly, we'd inform more people about the problems with AGW theory.
Andre is offline
Nov20-04, 09:45 AM
PF Gold
Andre's Avatar
P: 5,450
Pebrew, let me explain.

Before 1999, I was a global warmer (just a believer) but then there was the shock of the Jarkov Mammoth in Siberia. An animal found in a place where he couldn't be, in the middle of the last glacial maximum. And as I'm fond of solving riddles, I decided to concentrate on the ice age including the Mammoth. Since I had not studied any environmental/geological issues I was unbiased, so I learned about the scholar view after having seen the facts and figures instead of the other way around like is common for students and there is a very wide gap between paradigm and facts, believe me. Ever found the Pleistocene mammoth steppe in the global warming explanations talking about ice age?

It's all completely different and I have found a few explanations to harmonize a warm Siberia during the coldest part of the last glaciation and it has absolutely nothing to do with greenhouse gas. It is all about erratic interpretation of the proxies as supposed palaeo-thermometers. Have a thread about that somewhere down.

So as there was a sound global warming free alternative that combines all the facts. By some odd change I also stumbled upon Venus as ultimate evidence of greenhouse gas effect and most stunningly Venus explains itself along the same pattern. So, one single hypothesis solves mysteries of two planets. It's a long and complicated story though, Venus being the easy one. Perhaps you have seen the thread. I knew then for sure that anthropogenic global warming was is hoax, degraded to a futility. My biggest worry then was the damage that it would inflict on the scientific efforts and of course that a weird story like that - given the long row of crackpots - will never sell. Anyway, this is what happened:

A- Hey, the world may be in danger, due to global warming caused by antropogenic production of greenhouse gasses.

B - Okay that's bad, let's investigate how bad it really is.

A - I found a hockeystick somewhere, saying that it's really bad.

B - Okay I found several independ pieces of evidence in multiple disciplines that suggest that the current warming can be attributed to a lot of other factors, whilst the anthropogenic contribution seems to be minor, if at all. Besides that, your hockeystick seems to be doubtfull.

3 - Can't be, my hockeystick is right of course and since you are a crook, you're wrong. We have consensus here that the world shall fry and we have made models, working according to the garbage-in-garbage-out principle, which prove that we are right.
And I get to feel more and more bitter being stowed in the corner of the bad guys, the enemíes of mankind. I have a incredible story to tell and perhaps you appreciate that the story is exclusively based on normal sound physics. But I will never succeed because each and every speciality is involved. Astrophysics, Geophysics, Paleomagnetics, oceanography, climatology, you name it, and nobody is prepared to judge about the other specialities.

Somewhat earlier, Pebrew, you said that science loves it when the facts in various specialities seem to add up and come together. In the Anthropogenic Global Warming idea they most certainly don't.

But in Venus and the ice age discrepancy, mine do, but nobody seems interested.

Priority right now is to mitigate the Kyoto disaster ;hence my rants.
There is no discussion.
Meaning that it's very discouraging that the hard core global warmers have raised their standard of acceptance to such a level that the best you could expect is that they wait politely until you're ready and then continue with wathever they have to tell. Take the Urban heat islands for instance. I can work for hours proving that UHI effect does exist but it's hopeless, isn't there a study that says that they don't.

Discussion is communication and communication is talking alongside each other as closely as possible. But there are a few miles between the warmers and the sceptics - well beyond hearing distance.

But terrestrial planets have a serious design flaw and that's the truly important.
pebrew is offline
Dec1-04, 02:08 AM
P: 31
Andre, thank you very much for the explanation. i do appreciate the work you do.
and even though i agree that the warmers and skeptics have a few miles between them - well beyond hearing distance - i don't think that that means we should yell. that is, i don't think that ranting or polarizing a discussion much will help convince people to question AGW theory. but i realize that i haven't been on this forum long enought to see examples of blind warmers ranting that direction. and i know that most warmers are just that, blind to any information that may dispute AGW theory. so i can understand how it may seem that there's no way to reach those people but by reacting as strongly as they do. especially if you've found as many problems with AGW as you have.
nonetheless, i think chiselling away at the hockeystick, the positive-feedback greenhouse effect, etc is a much more effective method to get people to see the problems, than shoving the whole thing in their face every time a mildly related topic comes up. but as long as information gets out, that's a start.
Andre is offline
Dec1-04, 03:44 AM
PF Gold
Andre's Avatar
P: 5,450
Well, for what it's worth, I changed my personal policy for global warming.

Here is why (notice the tar and feathers as immediate result)
Mk is offline
Dec1-05, 04:51 AM
P: 2,057
Ah ha! I have finally moved my way down the thread, absorbing everything, and I am astounded to find how the hockeystick was broken. Dumbstruck.
YourMom27 is offline
Jul3-08, 03:58 PM
P: 1
Idso is AWESOME!

wolram is offline
Jul3-08, 08:11 PM
PF Gold
wolram's Avatar
P: 3,669
Andre, take a peek at
Andre is offline
Jul5-08, 02:05 AM
PF Gold
Andre's Avatar
P: 5,450
Thanks, Wolram. Unfortunatily I'm maxed out for quite some time to come.

Register to reply

Related Discussions
Do 2 laser beams interfere? General Physics 9
How does entanglement affect a photon's ability to interfere? Quantum Physics 0
more than two waves interfere! Introductory Physics Homework 1
double sew interfere Quantum Physics 3
How does a particle interfere with itself? Quantum Physics 9